wrong kind of tie. the large part of this aspect of hysteria over populism as a matter of aesthetic or maybe a better word would be snobbery. >> you can watch this and other programs on linux booktv.org. thank you all so much for being here. i am the curator lectures, and on behalf of town hall and our partners at the university bookstore in the back of the room over there, i am so pleased to welcome you to tonight's appearance presented by townhall as a part of this epic series by

the foundation northwest, the cabinet foundation, the building foundation, the rail networks and keio w., all of the infrastructure of supporting a book. and the town hall's working with the authors supported by the amazon literary partnership. in a moment i will welcom welcoo the microphone. he has a presentation that should be about 40 minutes after which we will have time for q-and-a with the audience. please use this microphone here on the side of the stage so that we can all pick you up in the room and for the archival recordings being made tonight and after all that, there will be a book signing you can pick up a copy at the university bookstore table in the back and he will be signing at this table right here in the corner of the room. before turning the microphone overcome just a couple of quick announcements. obviously we are not at the townhall the arab summit event space. one of our homes during the

season while the historic building over on the hill undergoes a major top to bottom renovation. we are producing a lot more events here and all of the venues in seattle. tomorrow for valentine's day we have david lynch on stage talking about the limitations and a great political doubleheader that some folks might also be interested in on thursday with historian in conversation on the american institution of the presidency for would'v would have 7:30 by e veteran journalist on the war in afghanistan, so this is a history of the afghan war and its particular role in that conflict and the ongoing longest war. there's a bunch more we are adding to the calendar over time, more events on technology

and politics. that's what we do here at townhall you can see all of these on the website and also sign up for membership and thank you to the members in the room. now on to tonight's program. an investigative journalist for the san francisco-based magazine focused on covering the politics and power. he's been published in wired, the nation, slate, observer and many others had appeared on network television including msnbc and his work provided by "vanity fair" among others he's here to discuss his book the secret military history of the internet which is a look at the little discussed background of so much of what we see in the surveillance in surveillance ine and it's important for us to hear.

please join me in offering a warm welcome. [applause] thank you for the kind introduction. glad tv in seattle and appreciate that i was invited here to speak about the intern internet. we'll talk about all the time yoit all the timeyou use it ally that increasingly we are peeked out by it and scared by it

especially after president donald trump one dot election you get the sense that just about everybody in dc is convinced that vladimir putin took what was normally a glorious democratic technology, the internet and turned it into a weapon of influence that he trained on the american people and helped elect donald trump andid you finally find an analyt with too talking about how what happens during the election with the internet never has it been

used to influence people especially by the government. that is the sense that you get. to counter this they have been pressuring silicon valley companies like google, facebook and other to work even more closely with intelligence agencies in order to secure the internet and protected from the foreign influence. this would be funny and comical but the problem is that it comes with possible danger to the cause but it is pushing people to do is to hand over even more power in silicon valley companies and hand them more control over the internet than they already have but there's

another aspect to the story the outrage is based on the deeply flawed premise that notion, the popular notion that it's some kind of a magic democracy machine is a myth. it's designed by the pentagon to deal with the influence. when it was developed by the wing of the pentagon that we now know it was an information weapon ban and is privatized in a commercial for them to.

yet for years we have been fed the myth about the origins of the internet we have been told that it's supposed at democratic and egalitarian and potential. it's a technology that is supposed to lead to a better world and collect power between average citizens and people in the most powerfuandmost powerfud entities in the world. it was estimate supposed to leae direct democracy, corruption and the need for the government altogether because we would be able to come together as a people on a global level and decide our own faith individually and collectively as well.

this campaign has rebranded it has always been a military technology both by military contract to something democratic and egalitarian and it's kind of amazing once you go back and look at it. and he has been convinced that this is true. we had a flood a failed utopia. in my homeland communism had failed to. this turning into this dark

place and so we fled. when we came to san francisco we found out that it was at hand, that communism was dead of the e internet was about to take its place and the internet in silicon valley and the market economy would bring into being all the things that communism could not achieve. it would equalize relations and destroy corruption because of this kind of system fully transparent and. of course it didn't come true. america is less equal than it

was 30 years ago. there is more poverty, more unemployment, even the average lifespan and the internet itself is also not very egalitarian or democratic. it's a private telecommunication system that is dominated by a powerful corporation that has turned this platform into a for-profit surveillance machine and they are extracting incredible amounts of money out of it. so, the question is what happened. how did this technology go astray and how do we make sense of it? you have to go back to the 60s

when the internet was created by the pentagon. back then, america was a relatively new global empire facing an increasingly chaotic and violent world. there was the vietnam war that was central to the u.s. was facing insurgencies all around the world from latin america to southeast asia and also an increasingly volatile and violent domestic environment. you have the antiwar movement, the militant black activism, groups underground that were heading out of bombs seemingly daily in cities all across the country, you have the racial riots in major cities. and america's paranoid generals to this end they saw the vast communist conspiracy of course. they saw the soviet union

expanding globally underwriting uncertainty iuncertainties all e world, backing those that were posted america and at the same time they were underwriting oppositional movement in america and they saw this as a new kind of war that was happening. this isn't a traditional war that you could fight with traditional weapons or that you could drop a nuke on or send a pink division into because the combatants did not wear uniforms they wer were part of a civilian population said it was a new kind of war and global insurgency and certain verified circles in the military and the people that were familiar with the new kind of technology being

developed belief that it was to develop new information weapons. computer technology that could interest to be the ow beat up oe and political movements and could combine economic data, criminal histories contract histories, photographed to look communications and put that all into the ballinto a database thw analysts to perform sophisticated analysis and then you have to take that enemy out and at the same time if somebody would dream of one day creating a global system of management that could watch the world in

real-time this is the general from which it emerged. today it is counterinsurgency origins of the internet that have been obscured. they have been lost for the most part. very few histories mention it even in the littlest bit. but at the time that it was being created in the 1960s, the origins of the internet and of this technology as a tool of surveillance and control were very obvious to people back then. at the time people did not see computers and computer networks to the utopian technologies. they sold them a saw them as tof political and social control and that specifically included the networks that would later grow into the internet.

so, my both surveillance belly is an attempt to cover some of this history that is important not just from a historical perspective but because you can draw a straight line from counterinsurgency origins and the internet technology that we use today from google to facebook and even privacy technology like the project which most people just know as the dark web for tonight i'm going to read a couple of excerpts from the book that our culture has lost and forgotten and then we will open up the floor for comments.

september 26, 1969 was a mild fall day at harvard university that all was not well. several hundred angry students gathered on campus and marched. they piled inside and refused to leave. a day earlier 500 students marched the campus of a small contingent of activists from democratic society that had broken into the schools. the office of international affairs forced administrators out on the street or a similar troubles were just across the rivea foot just acrossthe rivere holding protests. flyers posted on both campuses railed against computerized people manipulation and the

belated prostitution of social science. one thing that warned of until the military social science conflict is eliminated social scientists will and the enslavement rather than liberation of mankind. what exactly were the students protesting? the network that would later grow into the internet. earlier that year, activists for the society got their hands on a confidential proposal written by the legendary scientist who had set up the program in 1962. the document granted almost 100 pages and i went t outlined then of the program that would directly aim to the counterinsurgency mission. "the cambridge project. once completed without any analyst or military planner connected to upload financial transactions, opinion surveys,

welfare rolls, criminal record histories and any other kind of data and to analyze the data in all sorts of sophisticated ways of shifting through the information to generate predictive models, mapping out social relationships and running simulations that could predict human behaviors. the project of the sites providing analyst analysts patht at the third world countries and and left wing movements. students saw the cambridge project in the picker that plugged into it as a weapon. a pamphlet handed out at the protest explained, quote, the whole computer set up into the network were to enable the government for the first time to consult relevant survey data to be in the policy decisions. the net result of this would be to make washington's international police more effective into suppressing popular movements around the world. another book that is featured that gave a visual representation featured a

computer shaped like an octopus. to the activists, the cambridge project was part of a system of surveillance, political control and military conflict quietly assembled by the researchers and engineers with college campuses around the country. the college kids have a point. now i'm going to go to a segment six years in the future. june 2, 1975 the correspondent appeared on the evening news to report an exposé. he spoke straight into the camera and told viewers the military was building a sophisticated communications network and was using it to spy on americans and share surveillance video with the nsa. she was talking about the internet, the network that would later become the internet. our sources say the information

about the american protesters and were given to the cia and some was in the computers now. we don't know who gave the order to copy and keep the finals but we do know once the file in the defense department technology makes it incredibly easy to move information from one computer to another. the national security agency more than 20 other cities and a dozen research centers like the rand corporation. they spent months piecing the story together and for three days after the initial broadcast, he and his colleagues have several more efforts looking closely at this surveillance network in a shadow agency that had bolted. the exposé was phenomenal and was built on solid sources from the pentagon, the cia, the secret service as well as the key insiders to some of whom were concerned that the creation of the network that could

seamlessly link multiple government surveillance systems. in the 1970s, the historical significance was not yet apparent. it's become only more relevant in hindsight and it would take more than 20 years for the internet to spread into most american homes. for decades passed before it's made well aware of the massive demand to be co- amount. today people still think it is something on the internet, something imposed on the outside from paranoid government agencies. the reporting from 40 years ago it was a different story. it shows for the military and intelligence agencies use the network technology to spy on americans in the very first version of the internet in other words, surveillance was baked in from the very beginning. this is an important fact in the history of the internet yet it has vanished down the collective

memory hole. the popular history of the internet today there is no mentioning of it. even the foremost historians do not seem to know that this occurred. how are we on time? okay, i'm going to go 40 years into the future. we have a time machine here. 2011 less than a year after we broke onto the stage to middle east and north africa exploded. seemingly out of nowhere the huge demonstrations swept through the region. it started in indonesia where he lit himself on fire to protest humiliating harassment and

extortion at the hands of the local police. within weeks massive protests spread to egypt, algeria, jordan, libya and syria. the arab spring arrived. indonesia and egypt they had long-standing dictatorships from within and libya the opposition forces deposed and savagely killed gadhafi after a campaign from the nato forces. syria protests were met from the government and led to a protracted war that would claim hundreds of thousands of other lives leading to the worst crisis in history pulling in saudi arabia, turkey, israel, the cia, the russian air force and special operations teams, al qaeda, isis, the arab spring turned into a long bloody winter. the underlining causes of the oppositioopposition movements w,

complex and varied from country to country. youth unemployment, corruption, drought, high food prices, political repression, economic stagnation and long-standing geopolitical aspirations which are a few of the factors. to a young and digitally savvy group of individuals and foreign-policy planners, these political movements had one thing in common. they arose because of the democratizing power of the internet. they saw social media sites like facebook and twitter and democratic multipliers that allow people to get around to the official state-controlled information sources with organized political movements quickly and efficiently. the 21st century network in the state department official in charge of digital policy under the secretary of state hillary clinton crushed in the review of the official magazine of the north atlantic treaty organization. the reference had the ignorant

deductible was executed by the forces backed by the united states and particularly the cia. but the idea that social media could be weaponize against the countries and governments wasn't a surprise. for years the state department and in partnership with the broadcasting board of governments and companies like facebook and google worked to train activists around the world on how to use the tools and social media to organize opposition and political movements. countries in asia and latin america as well as former states like ukraine and belarus are all on the list and indeed the times were supposed to find any played a role in the arab spring from the command have taken part in the session. the u.s. political leader that attended the perfect training sessions and went on to lead protests in cairo told the paper we learned how to organize and build coalitions. this certainly helped during the revolution.

a different youth activists participated in the uprising was equally enthusiastic about the state department of social media training. it helped me very much because i used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons. staff from the project, the u.s. government anonymity tool that powers the dark web played a leading role in some of these training sessions. activism from tunisia, lebanon were all involved. they later taught at the training sessions driving around the blocks of the internet to use social media to organize protests. as one activist explained, it would be no accident. they spoke of some of these places all of a sudden had been exploding under their noses and down thintodown the road you haa revolution.

it rendered the efforts completely futile and they didn't know how to counter this move. the project was a wild success. the government had been funding it for years an and ventured finally into a powerful foreign-policy tool with a soft power weapon with multiple uses and benefits. it had spies and military agents enabling them to carry out the mission without leaving a trace. it was used by the government as a persuasive regime change weapon as well come a digital crowbar that prevented them from using sovereign control over their own internet infrastructure. it was a focal point for the activists and organizations. the huge cultural success but was that much more effective for the government actors by drawing to help shield from scrutiny. and it was just the beginning. they provided the u.s. government with the confidence and confirmation that it was

looking for. social media combined with technologies like this could be tapped to bring people into the streets and even trigger a revolution. diplomats called the democracy promotion. critics called it regime change. but it doesn't matter what you called it, th, the u.s. governmt so that it could leverage to south to political instability in countries considered hostile. good or bad it could weaponize the social media and use it for the insurgency and they wanted more. in the wake of the arab spring that the government directed more resources to the internet freedom technologies. the plan was to go beyond and launch all sorts of crypto tools to leverage the power of social media and help foreign actors build political movements and organize protests and offer secure systems designed to prevent the government from spying on activists. anonymous whistleblowing platforms to expose government corruption and wireless networks to be deployed instantaneously. to keep them even if the

government turn off their internet. strangely enough they are about to get a major credibility boost from an unlikely source from a contractor by the name of edward snowden. i think that's it. [applause] a question concerning the dark web. there've been a bunch of myths going around the past couple of years. how do i put this. is it anyway to the military control or to take it further,

can you avoid by using dark web? >> that is a two-part question. the first part is the dark web and into the control. no because the military funds the dark web comes with the project is anywhere from 90 to 99% funded by the u.s. government. a third of its funding comes from the navy. another third comes from the state department and another third from the broadcasting board of governors which is very closely tied to the state department broadcasting arm of the federal government. basically the american propaganda radio stations with radio free asia. so if the government wanted to control or it was a threat to the american power could be a

very easy solution to deal with it, just pull the funding. so that's the first part of the question. the second part is can you protect yourself by using the dark web. no, you cannot because in certain circumstances you can but what say you never log into any service then you can protect yourself as soo but as soon as e a phone tied to your identity or you login to any of the services it does nothing to protect you because you still just login with your personal information.

so in certain situations it can hide who you are coming your traffic history and things like that but it doesn't threaten the model because to use the services for the most part you have to log into them unless you create fake throwaway accounts. you can protect yourself. that's the only case and how you can protect yourself. and so, they both support them financially in various ways and

it's because it doesn't threaten their business model in any way. in fact it helps them by redirecting so they don't think about what google is doing. they think about using it to protect their privacy and so it's sort of redirecting peoples attentiopeople's attention to te surveillance that's happening as a matter of using the silicon valley platforms. a few weeks ago i was sitting home alone mumbling to myself as i often do and then all of a sudden i realized some of what i have been saying would probably be very disturbing to another person. [laughter]

i was carrying my screen with knee and may not have been alone at the moment. you use the term memory hole in your whole talk. have our rulers just coincidentally found themselves on the path towards a george orwell future or is it a conscious decision that they are using that as a model? >> i think george orwell that is a great novel, but it's actually been proven to be heated and predict the future, the future isn't a centralized government with the evil face on something on the tv screen looking at youu while i'm at watching you. it's actually not a centralized government at all, it is different diverse entities that are private and it doesn't seem to be a centralized directive of any kind. so we don't big brother is.

i don't know if they were coming off to 1984 plan. i don't think so and anyway, apple stashed their big brother in 1984. and ridley scott directed the film. i don't know, both i don't think that there is a grand conspira conspiracy. if you read my book i trace the path of how we got this amnesia or how the culture completely forgot something that it knew not that long ago, one of the things that surprised me and shocked me was how obvious arpanet was as a surveillance tool to people back then. so 1969, this is the first, this is the year arpanet went online. the first year and already

people are protesting about it and already talking about it as a technology of surveillance and control that if allowed to grow and expand what become of this surveillance tool and be used not just to monitor possible control. so the forgetting part i think it goes in line with the commercialization of the technology, so when the arpanet and the internet became lucrative coming at you can make a lot of money on it, there was a lot of money kicked into this space and really transformed the way we think about technology. the 1984 prime example of that sort of cultural shift driven back by a lot of money and commercial interests, so i don't think there was a big brother conspiracy to make us forget,

but it is actually much more pernicious than that because memory when you look at history you get a sense that the memory tracks power and so people remember things power want you to remember and things that go against power because they don't get funded. those ideas are not given space in society because things are fronted. you have to make a living as a journalist and an offer. it's a very decentralized kind of process, but our memory tracks power so silicon valley is the victor. hypothetically, if somebody has switched out a phone like once a week and used only wifi, but that protect them? speak to [laughter] >> why does the government care about you speak to don't answer

that question. [laughter] don't tell anybody. no, but it's a serious question because there is a pervasive fear over being watched. we are all worried about being watched but the question is who is watching you to what end. i know that really wealthy people are also very freaked out about the irs watching them. it's something that they hate because they are watching their money. i don't care about the irs watching them, i usually don't have that much to declare. so that is one i don't really have that i know a lot of people have that fear. that's the most prominent here they are not really worried about the nsa. so there's all kinds of surveillance. also, charles cook of the industry's worries about the epa and surveillance that agency could carry out. so there's all sorts of forms of

surveillance in a democratic society or any society that has walls and rules that have to be methods of making sure people follow the rules and its processes in place to survey people on some level. so when people are worried about the surveillance you have to say what are you actually worried about. what scares you and if it is just some sort of a very vague idea of some big brother watching [inaudible] but when you walk down the street do you have people watching. >> if you use tor argue much more likely to be watched? [inaudible] >> edward snowden documents a couple of things he released that shows even if you go to the

website you are going to be tracked much more severely. it is a self-selecting mechanism. if you use tor, and not that many do, then it is easy to see who uses it. it makes you more obvious to get the question is who are you hiding from and i think that this is a key point that we need to think about much more. i am a journalist and i've reprinted from all sorts of countries. i started my career reporting out of russia and i knew i was being surveyed. sometimes i would see people jump out of a car with a giant telephoto lens and snap pictures of me. that is something that you accept with the territory. you know that you are being surveyed and there is nothing you can do to stop it. it's part of the job.

>> [inaudible] >> ad blockers are okay [inaudible] let's talk afterwards. in regards to surveillance, everything you talk about is internet-based. we have a rise of camera surveillance with publicly located cameras and atms, etc.. due to the inherent connectivity of the internet and how that information is captured and used by various entities just for their own normal purposes, what

connection do you see with that aspect and all of them kind of tying together whether it is for sinister purposes or just marketing, what demographics do people visit and have a target seemingly unimportant thing as well as everything you've talked about much more sinister sounding. >> it is just an aspect of it in the tying together alof tying te inputs. so again, the holy grail is to create a system for human society. it's been there from the very beginning. a lot of people who went on to design the internet actually cut their teeth on building the first radar system. so from then on, the idea of

treating society as an airplane either you can monitor it or envelop it in a separate system that could monitor everything, that is the holy grail because the ideas. if you look at an airplane moving you can see and predict where it will be at a certain time in the future. and even all the probabilities in terms of the limitations of how fast they are going and where they can turn in all these things. you can protect a certainty of where they will be or the area they will be in the future. so if you can do that for an airplane, i can't do that for a person, for a group of people, for a whole country? so the idea of the internet is massive but you have all of the inputs there. cameras, wifi signals, things

like that, following to a satellite. so yes they are all connected. the thing about the internet, what started out as a purely system of transferring data and sharing it among intelligence agencies and also being able to analyze the data, but a if the internet went commercial, it became much more than that. .. >> what's we do on the internet? we don't go there just to give are so, we go on there to buy things and chat with friends and

share new stories. these are phones to find directions and find a good restaurant. things that we do normally. that just enhances the surveillance capability of the system. they're connected and i think you're coming to think there's another person. >> everybody here is interested in this. >> i have two classes of questions. the first is more personal, how do you live your life with all of this information? and second highs this impacted your use. >> not at all because there's

nothing i can do in an individual level after snowden and the deal that all this was happening on the internet the nsa partnership to turn the internet into this massive the time that they believed everything what happened but instead people got herded into this narrow band of politics where they would download a nap and get signal and people didn't get together and do anything. so when there is public

consciousness and people were focused to do something surveillance is a political it issue not a technical issue surveillance all always happens privacy is something that we have come to see as -- whereas in reality were not private animals. we want people to look at us. so there's different kinds of privacy and the same goes for the internet. if we want an internet that's not being dominated by these trying corporations and plugging

them in we have to have a society that doesn't to that. our society is dominated by these forces some me downloading an app and hiding in my shallow my computers not going to do anything as a journalist if i'm trying to hide eight i spend my life realize there's nothing to do. someone hacked into my kids computer and links my e-mails but i'm screw. >> no backlash from these organizations. >> it depends who. but they take a smarter approach and they ignore you and don't answer the phone so they ignore

you until they can ignore you anymore. >> one technical question of the dark web is funded by government big's business, and hackers develop on their why don't they do anything. >> he's never getting out of jail and he's the one who invented the dark web so they are doing something about it so if you look at the history of it it's useful to be with government many different ways but it only works if all sorts of people are using it says nudges revolutionaries comments

everybody uses it is good and like a busy marketplace are square that hides all the other stuff that happens there why would the u.s. government be funding something and diminish its own power. >> thank you. >> can you talk about your process of writing the book.

>> about the book was initially going to be somewhat limited and's scope. i knew the internet was to vote by the pentagon that there is a privatization that occurred in some point. that's all there is to it but when i went into the archives and started looking at the classifieds records and all contracts and all proposals i realize there is another thing. it was even deep this is

something i've seen in any area of the internet have an exported at all. as the prominent thing that you see when you go into the archives i did go into the book thinking that was going to be my thesis. was just gonna look at the interface between silicon valley and to look at the relationship but in the end that became a much smaller component of the book because it's part of the narrative. but the counter insurgency came

much later. there was a natural process. that really astounded me was finding out how much dumber we are today than they were half a century ago. there's no other way to put it. we have grown up with this internet and have it all around us. we think were savvy. yet our concept of it and its history is integration with political structures and politics so when i went back there's an incredible booklet from democratic society produced in 69 there's a whole booklet

about the may look that in a sense predicted with the internet would become. of course we couldn't know that much more fractured now it's much more sophisticated. but at the core they predicted what the internet is and understood it very deeply. when i came across that i was like this is incredible. it made me wonder how can other historians come across the same documents, how come they didn't write about it i don't think it's a conspiracy, just think ideology is a powerful thing. when ideology of the internet is powerful in our culture to the point where we think democracy

and the internet are synonyms now. when you write the history of the internet and you see is a counterinsurgency tool people are protesting it's years ago but it's this great amazing thing and it's gonna clash. it becomes hard to incorporate and explain. and so my book is the first glance at this but it's not the last one. i think were going to see more of it. we'll see it analyzed in this is just the tip of the iceberg.

>> policies were different back then people were much more critical of the u.s. empire in the interface between corporations and the military. this is like my colleagues like to call it the americans flag -- gorbachev had this openness is soviet union had in the late '80s the archives are opened and restrictions on the press were lifted a little bit. there is a softening of control in the 60s and 70s were kind of like that. there is a freeing of a political like an openness the morris sophisticated politically. in the end they failed but i

think it naturally came out. a large part is that back then computers were always tied to a powerful entity or corporation. there were giant so to have a computer you had to be a powerful institution. they're usually tied to a corporation or government agency. it was much easier to see the connection between the two. it gets harder to see the underlying reality because it's a giant corporation making that computer so in a way they had it easier because it was clear to see the connection between power and computers. >> have two quick questions.

my understanding is that this is essential to -- using irc to stay anonymous, said true. >> i think so. >> the ones who got arrested into that. and there some still at large. so if the government controlled it why didn't they -- i don't know. because they don't need to catch everyone all the time and why would they be caught, there's anonymous activists that went in to paypal.

to protester the boy count against wikileaks. they got screwed in the process. so does protect you to some degree but if you're an actual threat and you use it all the time but it does work, it's not like a totally completely transparent. although we don't know. when you dealing with entities like the nsa, we don't know what goes on in there. if you are funding it that you and people when he wanted to work it's hard to read into these intentions of these most secretive agencies on the planet. we just don't know. all i can do as a journalist is look at the money and the

interest that surrounded and who benefits and how it's used in who is empowered. the kid sitting somewhere like making jokes about -- is not really threatening buddies so but if you run these marketplace like -- then he's in jail. and if you look at logs that are kept you know that a server crash again and it would happen all the time. you knew the fbi was actively looking for men at that moment two agents had infiltrated the organization pretending to be

his friend. he was being actively sought and his server was crashing all the time and that's how he was caught in the end. i look at that and think that's crazy. he believed in the so much that even reality didn't stop him, knowing that his server crashed and leaked his identity. he still used it and believed it. >> ideology is a powerful thing. makes you ignore things that are parents other people. i don't know if that answers your question. >> thank you so much. [applause]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] macbook tv is on twitter and facebook. we want to hear from you. tweet us or post a comment on a facebook page. >> were here at the home of the bison. here we will explore the archives that holds evangelical artifacts. >> this is a christian and liberal arts university