All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 9, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
50:03
Google vs. America with Dr. Robert Epstein and Victoria Marshall
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Consultants Damage Our Country 00:14:51
Hey, everybody.
Today in the Charlie Kirk show, Dr. Robert Epstein goes deep into how Google has manipulated our elections and manipulated our children.
And Victoria Marshall walks through how the consultant class is damaging our country.
Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Open up your podcast application and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
That's Charlie Kirk Show and hit subscribe in the upper right-hand corner.
Come to AmericaFest at amfest.com.
That's amfest.com, A-M-F-E-S-T.com, Candace Owens, Kaylee McEnany, Greg Gutfeld, and more, amfest.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
The GOP has a political consultant problem.
A phenomenal piece in the federalists at the federalist.com by Victoria Marshall addresses one of the major issues facing Republicans.
And Victoria joins us right now.
Victoria, welcome to the program.
I thought your piece was very well written.
You also went to Hillsdale, so we're already on the same page on many different things.
I'm a big Hillsdale fan.
So walk us through your piece, The Republicans' Political Consultant Problem.
Yeah, of course.
Basically, in 2020, Democrats used the COVID-19 pandemic to significantly change the election system in our country or election laws.
So they allowed for mass unsupervised mail and balloting, as well as a month-long early voting.
So because of that, the calculus for winning elections has changed in this country.
It's all about collecting as many ballots as possible for your candidate to win instead of generating voter enthusiasm so that voters can come out on the polls on election day.
So basically, what that means is that Democrats significantly invest in the ground game.
So trying to collect as many mail-in ballots as possible before Election Day.
So they fund a lot of those ground game efforts, which includes going door to door, harvesting, and curing ballots.
Republicans, on the other hand, haven't really picked up on investing in the ground game because they hire these establishment-backed GOP consultants who basically tell their candidates to invest in the traditional campaign mailers or TV ads.
And they do that because one, they're kind of focused on the old model of generating voter enthusiasm to have their voters come out on election day.
They're not focused on mail-in ballots whatsoever.
But two, because there's a financial incentive for these GOP consultants to advise their candidates to spend money on the campaign mailers or the TV ads because they get a significant cut of the money.
So 10 to 10, ranging from 10 to 50%.
And so my argument is basically, even though how you win elections in this country has changed since 2020, there is a financial disincentive for these GOP consultants to actually tell their candidates how to win elections now.
How much money does the consultant class make?
I mean, give us some range.
Like, how much are these firms bringing in?
Um, it's it's in the millions of dollars.
I mean, back in the 2020 uh presidential election, there was like 10 consulting firms that helped Mitt Romney or, well, they didn't, he didn't win the election, but um, were focused on his efforts to uh become president.
They grossed a combined $1 billion.
Um, I remember in 2020, there was this um GOP House candidate, Kimberly Classic, I think was her name.
I could have, I might be butchering her last name, but she, um, her video kind of went viral on Twitter, but she was in a dead end race.
She was never going to win her race.
She paid one consulting firm $8 million and she never had a chance of winning.
So they're obviously pocketing a lot of money and they keep getting hired.
So there is no incentive for them to change their practices because they're making so much money.
And even if they lose all of these elections, it doesn't matter.
The Republican candidates will keep hiring them because it's kind of a revolving door.
Yeah, it's just a very close-knit world.
So if you want to aspire to higher office on the Republican side, you're told who to hire.
So, I mean, it would a very provocative idea that probably wouldn't make sense is we should just hire these people on contingency, saying if you win, then you get XYZ.
I do know they get at times victory bonuses, but they pale in comparison to the points on the ad buy.
And then whenever they're challenged, I know a little bit about this very, you know, not a lot, just kind of peripherally, because I'm, I just hear from candidates and stuff, is that they say, well, this is just the going rate.
It's 10 points or 15 points on the ad buy.
So despite all of that, though, and in your piece, you talk about how it is more lucrative to run television advertisements.
Even with that being said, we were significantly outspent on television by the Democrats as far as just not even just volume of money, but just living here in Arizona, it was five to one.
And so I have to wonder, even with that, where did this money go?
I, yeah, I don't know.
I mean, it just feels like it's a line in the considerable considerable political consulting class's pockets.
I mean, obviously, Democrats have way more money to throw around than their Republican counterparts.
I mean, they have, you know, billionaires like Sam Bakeman-Fried and Mark Zuckerberg, you know, funding these campaigns and these nonprofits that are just funded by billionaires on the Democratic side.
Republicans do not have that kind of money whatsoever.
So it surprised me that they expended way more on TV ads.
So Democrats had three advantages.
They have more money.
They spent it earlier and they had it earlier.
And they spent it wiser and better.
So they had all three.
So is there a similar consultant enriching scheme on the left or on the Democrat side?
Or is it that just because they have more money, it just by definition gets kind of baked into their calculus?
Or do Democrat donors have more oversight over this?
I definitely think there is kind of the problem with the Democratic political consulting class as well.
I think the Intercept actually ran a great report on that.
But the thing is, is that Democrats actually care about winning.
So even though that is a problem, they're going to do anything they can to win.
Republicans, they don't care about winning.
They're perfectly fine with losing.
But Democrats, you got to hand it to them.
They know how to win and they're out for blood.
Yes.
I mean, and so again, no one went to jail for illegally leaking the Dobbs decision, but I don't think we quite have appreciated.
So the leak happened in early May and the decision happened in late June.
That gave them 60 days to go hyper fundraise and build a machine.
It was a perfect time to raise money.
So it gave them a 60-day head start where they otherwise would have had to really scramble in July and August and ballots come out in early October.
And so what would you recommend, having done some very thoughtful research on this, to be the solution?
I mean, where does the RNC come into this, for example?
Because now there's a lot of chatter about who should run the RNC.
How do we fix this?
We have to invest in the same kind of apparatus that the left has.
We have to have, we have to be harvesting and carrying ballots.
We have to have the same kind of get up the vote, you know, crazy phone banking, going door to door.
I know the Warnock campaign, they were paying people to just call 40 to 50 of their closest friends and family to vote for Warnock.
I mean, the Republicans aren't doing that at all.
So it's just completely mirror their tactics and beat them at their own game.
Yeah, I mean, I was told by an RNC operative recently that they had an unprecedented ground game that was the greatest ground game ever.
Do you see any evidence of that?
Well, I mean, the Herschel Walker actually came pretty close to Warnock.
So it wasn't like a complete defeat, but I didn't really see any evidence of the RNC's ground game.
I know there was a Georgian nonprofit group that actually knocked on, I think it was ACTNOW Georgia, that knocked on 4 million doors and made 1 million phone calls to Georgians leading up to the runoff.
Their Republican counterpart, which I mentioned in my latest article I wrote about the runoff, only knocked on 400,000 doors.
Yeah, okay.
I'm sorry.
I was just thinking, if a Republican group is telling you that they knocked on 4 million doors, not possible.
I mean, we're in the door knocking business at turning point action.
We're still small.
Our political arm is not where we want it to be yet.
We're growing it.
And when we hit tens of thousands of doors, we're thrilled.
Doors are hard.
I mean, so Democrats, 4 million doors, totally believe it.
That makes sense.
And so, but such an important point.
Also, I want to talk about the fundraising splits with you, Victoria, because this is something that people don't realize: that if you donate money to a candidate, that someone might be earning 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 99% of that money very well might not go to your intended target.
To elaborate on this a little bit more, the Democrats do have a vetting organization where all their donors get together and they talk about in great detail how they vet progressive pro-democracy organizations and allocate funding from that.
And they try to ice out the bad consultants and synergize their strategy.
There have been other attempts to do this on the Republican side very unsuccessfully because there's so many ideological differences on the right.
You got the MAGA stuff, you got the America First stuff, the Chamber of Commerce stuff, you got the more libertarian stuff.
So I want to talk about this here.
You talk a lot about some of these races.
You talk about Ted Budd, JD Vance, also with Dr. Oz.
Walk us through that part of the piece.
Yeah, basically, this is kind of a different take on the consultant problem.
So the actual advice the political consultants were giving these candidates was kind of in the wake of the Dobbs decision.
They were telling people like Dr. Oz, Ted Budd, basically, stay away from the abortion question.
Don't talk about it whatsoever because it'll hurt you.
And what that ended up happening was that then their opponents, so Dr. Oz' opponents could define him as anti-woman, anti-women's rights.
And so his opponent, John Fetterman, kind of got to define the debate instead of Oz basically being able to be on the offense from the beginning and say, no, I'm actually pro-woman.
Here's why abortion is egregious.
Here's why the Dobbs decision was a good thing.
So actually not being kind of on, well, just not being able to define the debate in terms of the terms he wanted to have hurt Dr. Oz and the other candidates who shied away from abortion.
And that was the, once again, the GOP-backed or the establishment-backed GOP political consultant class's advice.
The kind of consensus amongst a lot of grassroots is there is an enormous amount of capital that is misspent and misallocated.
And what you talk about in your piece is exactly right.
The problem is that we don't really have the comfortable margin for this to continue.
And so the consultants earn money no matter what.
You mentioned this previously, but I want you to build this out a little bit more.
If consultants were to build out a ground game, they actually get poorer.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, I mean, they're not going to be making the kind of money that they make from TV ads or campaign mailers, right?
So they can get anywhere from 10 to 50% of the cut of those ad buys.
And with purely investing in the ground game, I mean, the consultants are only going to be making money off of their consulting fees.
So there's no financial incentive to tell their candidates to invest in harvesting or curing ballots or doing more phone banking or hiring another third-party entity or working with a nonprofit group to try and get as many voters as possible to elect them or to try and harvest as many ballots as possible.
There's no financial incentive.
The current incentive structure is set up where if they win, all right.
If they lose, all right.
Runoffs are great, by the way.
Runoffs are like consultants' best friends.
They banked a whole nother, do you have an idea?
If they make 10 or 15% on an ad buy and Herschel Walker did a $25 million ad buy, they're making $2.5 million on that ad buy.
And for small dollar donors that are just giving $10, $50, $100, they are just getting feliced by this consultant machine.
How Google Stopped the Red Wave 00:02:55
It's got to change.
I hope sometime soon.
Victoria, thank you so much.
Thank you for having me.
Everybody, email us your thoughts.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
I recommend you guys check out AmericaFest.
That's amfest.com.
We may never know the extent that Google has impacted our political discourse, our dialogue, or our elections.
But our next guest has done a lifetime of research looking into this topic.
He makes some very bold proclamations where he believes that the midterm elections were rigged by Google from mind manipulation to search engine optimization to search engine manipulation effect, S-E-M-E, and all other new types of online influence.
Dr. Robert Epstein is brilliant and he understands this issue better than anybody else.
And he's going to talk about from a very fair and analytical perspective, how we really don't have elections anymore.
We have mind simulation programs brought to you by Google.
Dr. Robert Epstein joins us next.
The end of the year is right around the corner, and it's time for you to consider a change in your investment plan.
This is Charlie Kirk, and I strongly recommend you go right now and see my friends at PAX to review your investments.
They are the one firm I know that focuses on biblical, responsible investing and does not force you to invest in companies that literally attack Christian values.
If we want religious liberty in our country, we have to stop investing in companies that are trying to suppress our freedoms.
I love PAX Financial.
They manage some of my money.
I trust them.
And that's why before the end of the year, you need to text the word Charlie to the number 74868.
That's Charlie to 74868.
And someone with PAX Financial Group will connect you right away.
So take out your phone, text the word Charlie to 74868.
I trust them with my money, and I think you should trust them with your money.
That is the word Charlie to 74868.
They're a great operation.
Check them out today.
Dr. Robert Epstein, and he has an incredible piece called How Google Stopped the Red Wave.
And Dr. Epstein is with us now.
Doctor, thank you so much for joining us today.
Tell us about your piece, How Google Stopped the Red Wave.
Well, sure.
Nice to be with you today, Charlie.
I remember you from Liberty.
In this article I wrote for the Epoch Times, How Google Stopped the Red Wave, which people can get access to directly by going to the midtermswererigged.com.
Manipulating Human Behavior Online 00:15:02
Themidtermsworrigged.com.
I tried to come up with something that was memorable.
I explain that in this particular election cycle, that we were able to recruit more than 2,000 registered voters, mainly in swing states, and to monitor what the tech companies were sending to real registered voters.
And this is a mix of conservatives, liberals, and moderates through their computers.
So we were actually looking on the computers of real people and capturing the ephemeral content that companies like Google use to manipulate opinions and votes on a massive scale.
Normally, ephemeral content is lost forever.
We have, over the past six years or so, have developed a unique system, the first one in the world that does to Google and the gang what they do to us and our kids.
That is, we've learned how to monitor them to see the actual content they're sending to real people.
And we preserved more than 2.4 million ephemeral experiences on Google, on Bing, Google's homepage, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and more.
And we have been in the process of analyzing the data we've collected, looking for signs of bias or manipulation.
We have found on Google in particular, extreme forms of manipulation, bias in search results, bias in YouTube videos, and in fact, of targeted messaging on their home page.
By that I mean sending go vote reminders less to conservatives, sending fewer of those reminders to conservatives and more to liberals and moderates.
Now, that's a very, very blatant vote manipulation.
And bottom line is that we've captured a massive amount of information that is normally lost forever.
That's ephemeral content.
Number one, number two, we found, again, these signs of bias.
Number three, roughly speaking, we've only just begun analyzing the data, but that level of bias, if it had been present nationwide and Google had been using these shenanigans nationwide, would have shifted.
Now, this is a real number.
So I mean, I don't exaggerate numbers.
It would have shifted about 80 million votes in the midterm elections.
Now, that's spread across hundreds of elections.
So it sounds like an impossibly large number, but that's spread across hundreds of elections.
This is not, remember, the midterms are not a national election.
So the national election 2020, we know that they shifted about 6 million votes, almost all in the direction of Joe Biden, whom I supported.
I'm not a conservative.
But in the midterms, they're affecting hundreds of elections, local, regional, state elections around the country.
And the level of bias that they had in the content they were showing real voters would have shifted roughly 80 million votes without anyone knowing and normally without anyone capturing any of that content.
Of course, our monitoring systems have changed that.
And I'll just mention here before we get into some details that we are now expanding our monitoring system.
Normally, we shut down after each election.
Not this time.
We are expanding.
We're past now 3,500 of these field agents, we call them.
And we are continuing to expand every single day.
And by the end of next year, we will have a digital shield in place for the United States of America.
That is to say, a very large panel of these field agents in all 50 states.
And this will allow us to keep the tech companies out of our elections for the foreseeable future and away from our children.
So can you give an example of the ephemeral experience?
What would that, you said you have 2 million examples of them or instances.
Give us a couple examples of what you mean by that.
Well, sure.
The simplest one for people to picture is that you go to Google's homepage to look something up, and that homepage is seen 500 million times a day just in the United States.
And there on the homepage is a big, cute cartoon saying, go vote.
It's election day.
Go vote.
And maybe there's even a link that takes you to information about where your nearest polling station is.
So here's the problem.
The problem is that even if that went to everybody, it would still be a vote manipulation because of the demographics of people who use Google.
They tend to be young.
They tend to be more leaning left.
So it would still be a vote manipulation if they sent it to everyone.
But we know, because we're tracking this now, we know that they're not sending it to everyone.
Now, think about how powerful a manipulation that is.
If you are sending vote reminders mainly or exclusively to members of one party, you can on Election Day itself generate an additional 450,000 votes for that party or that candidate.
And no one will know that you have done it, except for our monitoring system, of course, which is the only one in the world.
So that's an example of an ephemeral.
Now, what makes it ephemeral is you see it on your screen and then you click on something or type in a search term and then it's gone.
It disappears.
And there's no record of it.
That's why in 2018, when there was a leak of emails to the Wall Street Journal and some employees at Google are talking about how can we use ephemeral experiences to change people's views about Trump's travel ban.
In other words, internally in the company, they know the power that these experiences have.
They know that they leave no paper trail.
So they use them deliberately to influence people, more than 3.5 billion people around the world with no one to stop them.
So let me just, I mean, I fully agree with everything you're saying.
Let me just play devil's advocate.
They'd say, how could you possibly measure the impact of an ephemeral experience?
It's short.
So how would you respond to that?
Well, since 2013, we've been conducting randomized controlled experiments, experiments that are extremely rigorous scientifically with real registered voters, and not just in the U.S., but other countries too.
And we've been looking at one manipulation after another that we've discovered and measuring and quantifying the power that each kind of ephemeral experiences has to shift votes.
So targeted messaging, we have a paper now under review with a scientific journal that measures quite precisely what the power is of targeted messaging has to shift votes and opinions.
It's enormous.
You can easily shift the voting preferences of 40% or more of undecided voters using targeted messages with no one aware that this is being done.
How would they know?
How would they know that they're getting a reminder and someone else isn't?
Or how would they know?
Yeah, no, but an example would also be if you typed in, let's take someone who ran for the United States Senate unsuccessfully, Adam Laxalt, right?
So if you were to type in Adam Laxalt and the top search results would say scandal or meaning recommendations, would that be an ephemeral experience?
Or Donald Trump, corrupt, impeached, narcissistic, instead of stance on economy, or would that be the top search query recommendations in the tabs below?
It's an excellent question.
And when you go to google.com, go to their search engine, which you should never, ever do.
No one should use that.
It's their main surveillance platform.
It's not an information source.
It's a surveillance platform.
That's all it is from a business perspective.
They're just tricking you into giving up personal information.
There are better search engines, believe it or not, faster, better search engines that don't track you.
So don't ever use google.com.
Again, if there's nothing else you get from this program, don't use that.
But here we go.
You go to google.com, you start typing something.
If whatever you're typing begins with the letter A, they're going to flash suggestions at you.
And usually most of those suggestions are going to be go to Amazon, go to amazon.com because Amazon is Google's largest advertiser.
And Google is Amazon's largest single source of traffic.
So they're starting to manipulate you from the first character you type.
They're manipulating you with search suggestions.
Then maybe you click on something and now down below you get search results and maybe an answer box or two or three.
And those answer boxes are biased and the search results are biased.
And we've measured precisely what impact biased search suggestions have on people, what impact biased answer boxes have on people.
And most importantly, what impact biased search results have on people.
That was our first discovery when we started realizing that the internet was offering these new methods of manipulation that had never existed before.
These are extremely, extremely dangerous manipulations because, number one, people can't see them.
You know, you can see a commercial or a billboard.
You can't see these kinds of manipulations.
That's right.
Number two is that they leave no paper trail.
They're all ephemeral.
They vaporize.
Yeah, that's right.
They just disappear.
And number three, they're in the hands of a couple of tech monopolies.
In other words, they're not competitive.
You can't counteract them.
If you, Charlie, you put up a billboard supporting your candidate, I can put up another billboard.
I could put up two billboards, in fact, right next to it supporting my candidate.
But if Google, if the platform itself is favoring one candidate or one party or one cause, guess what?
There's nothing you can do.
You cannot counteract it.
It doesn't matter how much you pay them.
You cannot counteract what they're doing.
The danger is how subtle it is, how subtle it is.
And it's millions and millions of minor adjustments that are focused on a certain outcome.
I want to ask you about, there's several aspects of this that I want to unpack with you.
But so you talk about how Google manipulates.
Is it a focused and articulated political agenda from Google's engineers?
Or does some of this just kind of happen over a period of time?
Can you talk about that?
I mean, is this something where they know what they are doing intentionally?
And now we're seeing the fruit of that.
Well, the first few years that I was doing research on ephemeral experiences and learning about the power that Google and other companies have to shift opinions and votes to impact our children.
First few years I was doing this work, I really didn't know whether Google was actually using these tools and if they were using them deliberately and systematically.
Now that's changed in the last few years because at this point, we have had so many whistleblowers, people who were fired by the company or who just couldn't stand it anymore and who quit.
Tristan Harris was one of the first.
His title was a design ethicist.
And he said straight out, I was part of a team that was manipulating the thinking and behavior and opinions of more than a billion people around the world.
That was pretty clear.
There are a whole bunch of them now.
I've gotten to know some of them.
Zach Voorhees, when he left the company, and he'd been a senior software engineer there for more than eight years, he took with him more than 950 pages of documents and a video.
And among those documents were manuals having to do with what they call algorithmic fairness.
Algorithmic fairness is their internal term for social engineering.
In other words, yes, they deliberately and systematically alter content that presents a worldview that they support.
So, what worldview do they support?
Well, just again, look at the numbers, look at the data.
95% of donations from Google employees and the Google company go to Democrats.
Now, I lean left, so I think that's just great, but I don't like a private company having the kind of power they have to shift opinions and to undermine our democracy.
And we're now figuring out what they're doing to our kids.
That's our newest research effort.
So, the answer is yes.
We know from whistleblowers now, we know from leaked emails, leaked PowerPoint presentations, leaked videos.
My favorite one, it's unbelievable, by the way.
And if you go to my website, well, you could go to mygoogleresearch.com.
That's the place to start if you're interested in what we're doing and you want to help us.
Go to mygoogleresearch.com.
But, the point is, one of the videos that leaked there is an eight-minute video was never meant to be seen outside the company.
The Mystery of Social Engineering 00:07:38
It was produced by their advanced products division.
It's called The Selfish Ledger.
If you look up The Selfish Ledger and then Transcript or Epstein Transcript, you actually get a transcript of it with a link where you can watch this video.
This video is about the company's ability to re-engineer humanity.
They call it re-sequencing human behavior.
And it literally says, according to company values.
So, the answer to your question is: hell yes.
They are deliberate and systematic in their efforts to alter our thinking and our behavior and the thinking and behavior of our kids.
Yes.
And we're going to talk about that.
No one is stopping them.
My team is the only team in the world that does the kind of work that we're doing.
So, Doctor, you're talking about our kids.
What do you mean by that?
I think we're all aware that a lot of there's been a lot of shifting of the way our children think about a lot of topics, especially kind of socially controversial topics.
There's been a lot of quick shifting in the way young people think about many things.
And, you know, I find that this is a mystery to most parents, especially the speed of the change.
We are now beginning to collect data from children, from young children and from teens.
And we are going to see the actual content on a very large scale that these companies are sending to young people.
I think we're going to find just shocking, shocking content.
Not just pornography and violence, but I think we're going to see very deliberate attempts at indoctrination.
Again, it's social engineering.
I think what seems so mysterious to us when we actually dig into this kind of data is the mystery is going to be gone.
We're going to see what they're doing.
And we're going to stop them because that's the point now of us building the first ever national digital shield, viewing the content that the tech companies are sending to voters, to kids in all 50 states on a large scale, monitoring that 24 hours a day, looking for shenanigans and bias and manipulations and exposing them as we find them.
And we've already seen two instances, one very clear instance, in which when we expose Google, they back off.
They have to back off.
So this is the solution in the absence of laws and regulations, which Washington is never going to give us.
In the absence of laws and regulations, we need to work together.
That means me and you, Charlie, and your viewers, we need to work together to build this nationwide monitoring system.
And, you know, I've had help from some people with funding.
I've had help from some media people without whom I wouldn't even be able to do any research.
So people like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and others.
And the fact is, I couldn't do my work unless you folks, you and your colleagues were giving, you know, bringing attention to my work.
And frankly, not just helping with the donations, but also putting me in touch with big foundations, putting me in touch with major donors who can provide a lot of funding.
And it's very expensive to do what we're doing, but it has to be done.
It's not optional.
If we're not monitoring them the way they monitor us and our kids 24 hours a day, if we're not monitoring them, the actual content that they're sending to real people, that means we will never know the impact that they're having on our democracy, on our elections, on our children.
We will never know because, again, all of these manipulations are largely invisible to people and they all use ephemeral content, which appears and impacts you and then disappears and it's gone forever and it's not stored anywhere.
And no authorities can go back in time and reconstruct that content.
It's impossible.
So I have a couple questions closing here.
You've mentioned this briefly, but you say you're on the left, which fascinates me and will fascinate our audience.
We're obviously a conservative show.
And you admit and acknowledge that this manipulation is currently actually benefiting your desired political objective.
So the obvious question is, then why are you fighting so hard on it?
Out of principle and out of fear and concern that this is just an immoral or evil leviathan that could destroy us all.
I'll take that one.
But, you know, I would put it another way.
I would say simply that I love America.
You notice I'm wearing a, I don't know if you can see it, but I am wearing a White House issued pin that was given to me by someone in the White House.
And that was during the Trump administration, not the Biden administration.
I love America.
I love democracy more than I love any particular candidate or party.
I think everyone should be able to agree with that, that we love America more than any particular party.
And that's why.
And yes, I'm horrified by what we keep finding as we continue to investigate these companies.
I am horrified.
I don't want private companies that are not accountable to the public to have this kind of power.
But by setting up monitoring systems, by setting up National Digital Shield, which we'll have in place fully by the end of 2023, that will make these companies finally accountable to the public, which they've never been.
They are so arrogant.
They act like gods because they have the power of gods and no one has been trying to stop them.
Nobody.
So I'm curious, just from all of your media, you mentioned Joe Rogan, you mentioned Tucker.
Do you find a welcome audience for traditional media or activists on the left as much as you would say the traditional right currently?
No, in fact, they have blacklisted me.
I mean, and that's all the places I've written over the years were for places like USA Today and Time Magazine.
And, you know, I mean, U.S. News and World Report and so on.
Now these editors won't even respond to my emails because they all think I'm helping the right.
I'm not helping the right, not at all.
You're helping America is what you're doing.
I'm helping America.
I'm helping democracy.
You know, democracy is a flawed system, but show me a better one.
Helping America Monitor Platforms 00:04:09
You can't.
It's impossible.
And yes, I'm fighting hard.
And at some cost, by the way, to me personally, I have members of my own family who won't even talk to me at this point.
Dear friends of mine, one of whom is the head of engineering at Google, he stopped talking to me.
His wife, who ran a school for autistic kids where I was on the board for many years, she stopped talking to me.
This is without any conflict.
I've never had any conflict with these people at all.
They just don't like the work I'm doing and they don't like the wrongs that I am exposing.
But I'm not going to stop because the fact that my team is the only team in the world doing this stuff, that means we have to keep going.
We have to go harder and faster.
And I do need help.
I have to emphasize that.
So if people go to my googleresearch.com, they can get links to all kinds of information.
The work we do is rigorous.
It adheres to the very highest standards of scientific principles and research and principles.
And, you know, we publish in peer-reviewed journals.
We present at scientific meetings.
This is hard science that we're doing and it's hard to do, by the way.
But we've been doing that now for 10 years and we've been developing monitoring systems now since 2016.
And the combination of the two, you see, the basic research tells us the power that these companies have.
And that includes, by the way, even Amazon, because we've published research a few months ago on Amazon Alexa.
We have a perfect Alexa simulator.
It's pretty cool, actually.
The point is, if you ask our simulator a question that's politically related, we can give any answer that we want.
So we've done controlled experiments showing that a single question and answer interaction on Alexa can produce shifts in voting preferences by more than 40%.
And that if over and over again, Alexa gives you biased answers favoring one candidate, we can get shifts of over 65% among undecided voters with no one having the slightest idea that they've been manipulated.
And so we now are very close, by the way, to adding to adding equipment and software to our monitoring capabilities.
So we're going to be able to monitor sometime early next year.
We're going to be able to monitor the answers that they're getting from personal assistants on their mobile phones, on their tablets, and so on.
You know, we are doing to them what they do to us and our kids 24 hours a day.
And I need help.
So my googleresearch.com, that's one place to go.
Go to the midtermswererigged.com and you'll see my new article explaining how aggressively we monitored content that was being sent to people during the midterm elections.
You know, what we're doing is it's very stressful, but it's also exciting.
You know, we have very, very dedicated people working here.
And we try to be as conscious as we can about security and safety and privacy.
But you have to ask yourself this, and this, I know, bothered Joe Rogan quite a bit.
Why are we the only group in the world, the only research group in the world doing this kind of research?
Part of it is a little self-explanatory because it doesn't exactly win you friends.
In closing here, let's talk about what individual people can do.
What can somebody listening right now support you and they should.
But what browser should they be using?
Protect Your Privacy Today 00:05:26
What competitors should they be using?
What behavior should they change?
Should they ever use YouTube, for example?
Because that's largely unavoidable, but it's an extension of the Leviathan.
Walk us through it.
Okay, I'm going to walk you through it, but first, let me, since you mentioned YouTube, YouTube is one of the platforms we've been monitoring.
And we found that in some of the swing states, more than 80% of the videos being recommended to people, you know, through the up next suggestion, which is that video in the upper right-hand corner, more than 80% of them, 85% or more in some states, are coming from liberal news sources.
And it doesn't matter who they're going to.
They're highly, highly biased.
Okay, now to answer your question, a lot of people ask me this.
So what can I do to protect my own privacy, the privacy of my family?
So I've summarized it.
So if you go to myprivacytips.com, myprivacytips.com, then you can read an essay and it starts with the following sentence, more or less.
I have not received a targeted ad on my mobile phone or laptop computer since 2014.
That's me, and that's the truth.
So there are ways to use the technology, use the internet, and to protect your privacy.
The first thing you have to do is give up Gmail.
You don't have to give it up exactly.
You just have to set up Gmail so it forwards everything to your new private email address.
So you just don't have to check Gmail anymore.
Your content's still there, but you don't have to check it.
So now you're checking for your emails on your new private email, which is I use ProtonMail.
So it's at protonmail.com.
And that uses end-to-end encryption.
It's like the old days where you wrote a letter, you put it in the mailbox, no one can see it until it reaches the recipient.
That's how end-to-end encryption works.
So Proton, the Proton company, they themselves can't read your emails.
So, you know, you have to get, you shift over to a private email service.
You shift over to private search engines and private browsers.
What we're recommending right now is Brave.com.
Brave is fabulous.
Brave is faster than Chrome, completely private, and it has its own search engine, which doesn't track you.
So if you go to myprivacytips.com, you'll see a whole list there, seven things you can do to protect your privacy and the privacy of your kids.
And I have converted, by the way, that I know of, tens of thousands of people, some of whom are very grateful, have expressed their gratitude, you know, and some of them very generously to support our research.
And, you know, you've got to do this.
This is not an option.
And if you tell me I have nothing to hide, you know how many times I've heard that?
I can't count them.
But if you tell me you have nothing to hide, then you just don't get it.
You don't understand what's happening because, first of all, everyone has things to hide or things that would be embarrassing to them.
But that's not the point.
The point is when they collect all this information, even if you're a perfectly innocent person, they can use that information to manipulate you and your family without anyone knowing because the more you know about someone, the easier it is to manipulate them.
And Google literally builds these very elegant, massive digital models of all of us.
And those models allow them to predict our wants and our needs and our behavior and allow them to manipulate us very subtly.
You used that term earlier, Charlie.
And you don't want to give up information to private companies.
And there's no reason to.
There's no reason.
You don't have to be used.
These are not what you think they are.
These Gmail and Chrome and Android, which is also Google and YouTube.
These are not what they seem to be on the surface.
On the surface, they seem to be free tools, free, cool tools.
They're not free because when you use them, you give up your freedom.
That's not free.
Nope.
And from a business perspective, they're nothing like what you see.
From a business perspective, these are surveillance platforms.
That's all they are.
They're just surveillance platforms.
They trick you into giving up personal information.
That information is used to make money off of you.
It's basically sold, and that information is used to influence you.
And you are the product.
Dr. Robert Epstein, thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
We have to have you back on soon.
Thank you.
Thanks, Charlie.
You're doing good work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Everybody, see you guys tomorrow.
Thanks so much.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection