Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 27, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:16:47

Hang On…GOOGLE Shifted 6 Million Votes To Biden In 2020?! - Stay Free #211

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, so
	so so
	so Brought to you by Pfizer.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
	Welcome to Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	The first 15 minutes of the show will be available on YouTube, then will be exclusively on Rumble.
	Today we're talking about, well, Nazis, actually.
	What is a Nazi and what isn't a Nazi?
	Is a Nazi a member of the Nazi party being applauded in Canada?
	Are declared Nazis Nazis?
	Or are Nazis people that are just called Nazis for various reasons?
	Also, we're going to be talking to Dr. Robert Epstein about the phenomenal power of Google and their ability to manipulate the public sphere and conversation in ways that are just staggering.
	You're going to want to see that.
	And to start us off, we're going to be talking about just ordinary, typical corruption.
	Democrat US Senator Bob Menendez and his wife have been charged in a bribery inquiry.
	This is real old school, gold bullion, James Bond style villainous corruption.
	Let's have a look.
	New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and his wife indicted by a federal grand jury.
	The senator is accused of using his office to help several businessmen from New Jersey as well as the Egyptian government in exchange for receiving hundreds... That sounds like a sort of 80s Bruce Willis film.
	The Egyptian government, business people from New Jersey.
	What's, I suppose, most troubling about this is that it's not surprising at all, is it?
	Don't you just expect people in Congress and the Senate to be taking bribes?
	Isn't it just understood at this point that this is their function, that all we have here is a more overt and slightly more comical example of what is institutionally true?
	I mean, how far along the gradient is this type of corruption from the ordinary donations and lobbying and ordinary framing of the political obligations of senators and congress people everywhere and our understanding that these people are not representatives of common interests or popular interests they are simply in the service of elite establishment agenda and when some gold bullion turns up or a briefcase full of money or an envelope full of dirty cash it simply serves as a more poetic and easily understandable example of something we all know to be true anyway.
	in gifts, including cash, a luxury vehicle, even gold bars.
	The gold bars was when they were running out of ways to bribe him.
	Here's some gifts, some cash, a luxury vehicle. How about actual just gold?
	There we go!
	Ow!
	Don't throw that thing, it's heavy!
	It's the kind of ridiculous overt cartoon corruption that offers us a readable symptom of how the establishment operates.
	They claim moral authority, but actually this is what they're about.
	But in this instance, there is a plain distinction between what they claim to be and what they actually are.
	Look at them.
	Suits, ties, dressed up, the rhetoric of politics, and behind the scenes, gold bars.
	No transparency, no clarity, evident and obvious corruption.
	It accuses the Senator of accepting cash and gifts, including, as you mentioned, gold bars, a luxury Mercedes-Benz vehicle, in exchange, and they call it bribery, for taking official action to benefit the people that were paying the money.
	Yeah, I know how bribery works.
	What, you mean you give me that gold bar and then I say stuff in the Senate that's beneficial?
	You're a genius.
	I'm glad we got you on the team.
	...separate arrangements.
	There was a, uh, there was an Egyptian, uh, figure who had a halal meat business that got an exclusive deal to provide halal meat to the government of Egypt, even as Senator Menendez had significant influence over foreign U.S.
	militaries.
	Do you know what I like?
	Halal meat.
	You guys should be eating more halal meat.
	Aren't we in the middle of a culture war against presumed Islamic interests?
	That says maybe, but you gotta try this halal.
	To believe it!
	Look at how the legacy media take the opportunity to present this as a sort of outlier.
	That this is somehow distinct from the kind of corruption that is actually institutional.
	And I'll give you some examples of that in a moment.
	sales and military aid to Egypt and the indictment details a series of allegations where they say Senator Menendez exerted that influence and pressured Egyptian officials even as he was helping this company and then separately it says that the senator intervened in two separate criminal matters involving his associates trying to uh... stop essentially the criminal investigations into those people in exchange for financial compensation in the form of bribes.
	And what's so shocking about this, Ana, is it's coming just six years after Senator Menendez narrowly escaped conviction in a separate and unrelated corruption case.
	There was a hung jury.
	The Justice Department decided not to retry him.
	And he was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for taking gifts and luxury items from a friend of his in exchange for official action.
	You can't get enough of it, can you, old Menendez?
	He loves a bribe, plainly.
	But how is this significant case of overt, almost comedic bribery distinct from these examples of corruption that you would have to regard as institutional?
	From the world of energy, at least 100 members of Congress own fossil fuel stocks, of which 59 are Republicans and 41 are Democrats.
	So there you go, that's an example, I would say, of corruption that's accepted and legal.
	Pharma, of the $263 million that the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying in 2021, it gave 61% to the Democrat party and 39% to the Republican party.
	Again, a type of corruption and bias that is, in a sense, far more influential, impactful, and yet legal.
	Banking.
	In 22, commercial banks spent over 30 million dollars lobbying Congress, 61% to the Republicans and 39% to the Democrats.
	Notice again how both wings of the parliamentary or congressional system are beholden to the same interests, meaning that whoever you vote for, you're voting for a party that is paid for by these types of interests, whether it's banking or Big Pharma or the military-industrial complex or the energy industry.
	Nearly 20% of Congress members, 49 Democrats and 44 Republicans, have been trading shares of companies in industries they are supposed to be overseeing as part of their committee assignments.
	Compared to that, Menendez just looks like a sort of old-school corrupt, like, Mayor of Springfield type politician, rather than an institutionally corrupt and more invasive political operator.
	Defence.
	The Pentagon spent $14 trillion after 9-11.
	55% of it went to for-profit defence contractors.
	That's one of the big ones, isn't it?
	Just shows how an entire nation is formulated around this type of corruption.
	Military contractors have spent $2.5 billion on lobbying over the past two decades.
	They split their checks more or less evenly between Democrat and Republican candidates.
	Soon after the Ukraine war broke out last year, Congress voted to appropriate $40 billion in aid to Ukraine.
	Every single Democrat voted for it.
	40 Republicans urged Joe Biden to include a 5% increase in defense spending In his 2023 US budget.
	So this obvious example of corruption really just gives us an opportunity to look at institutional corruption.
	All dear old Bob Menendez really did was did a bit of atavistic, old-school, nostalgic corruption instead of the more slick corruption that passes for ordinary government these days.
	In a way, what stories like this demonstrate is a lack of moral authority and integrity at the heart of our systems, whether they are media, state, institutional, governmental, judicial.
	We already know that's the case, and sometimes you get an obvious, glaring, and almost comedic example of that, Like when a Nazi is honoured in the ultra-liberal and progressive, according to their own declarations, Canadian Parliament.
	Let's have a look at that in more detail and look at how the term Nazi is used to shut down dissent and debate when actual Nazism appears to be literally celebrated in Parliament.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the fucking news!
	The establishment and the legacy media are certain that there are Nazis and fascists everywhere, particularly when people oppose their agenda.
	But they're also willing to applaud and fund actual Nazis.
	Does this mean that we live in a truly nihilistic time with no truthful moral centre in any of our establishment institutions?
	Surely you have noticed that terms like Nazi and fascist are used profligately to describe anyone who opposes the agenda of the establishment.
	And yet we find curious contradictions when we look at the funding of the ongoing war.
	We find peculiar anomalies when an Does this mean that terms like Nazi and fascist have lost their tethering, have lost their root, have lost their grounding because we live in a kind of nihilistic time where language is used in order to create narratives that are beneficial and to shut down opposition?
	Are we able to have honest, moral conversations about righteousness and justice anymore anyway?
	Who has true moral authority?
	Who do we look to now to determine what is right, what is wrong, what is just and unjust?
	Just a few examples of this from recent times of course are the profligate and sometimes casual use of terms like Nazi and fascist with establishment politicians willing to label their opponents as fascists and Nazis simply as a means to shut them down.
	Let's have a look at those terms now, because if you fund actual explicit Nazis in the ongoing
	war, that's not to say that the Ukrainian cause is not just, or that Ukrainians are
	more broadly Nazi. Of course it isn't, it's just a reference to the actual Nazi battalion
	that are funded as a result of this war and the complexities of this war. And let's have
	a look at this extraordinary incident where a real life, genuine, actual swastika wearing
	Nazi was applauded on the eve of Yom Kippur.
	And ask, where is moral authority now?
	And how are we all suffering as a result of the loss of this genuine moral centre?
	I remember as a young student, you know, trying to figure out,
	how did people get basically drawn in by Hitler?
	How did that happen?
	And I'd watch newsreels and I'd see this guy standing up there,
	ranting and raving and people shouting and raising their arms.
	I thought, what's happened to these people?
	Why did they believe that?
	Well, some of them in Canada.
	They'd applauded in Parliament.
	You saw the rally in Ohio the other night.
	Trump is there ranting and raving for more than an hour, and you have these rows of young men with their arms raised.
	I thought, what is going on?
	Okay, so there's an obvious attempt to equate supporters of Trump with Nazis.
	A literal, apparent and observable attempt to do just that.
	Now put aside your own preferences for a moment and think about what the meaning of Nazism is in a contemporary context.
	Does it mean fascism?
	Does it mean genocidal policies?
	Does it mean racism?
	Certainly any Nazi worthy of the term would have to be racist and genocidal, I would say, as a bare minimum.
	How is it that this term continues to be used and what is the function of this term?
	Is it simply to shut down conversation?
	Is it to delegitimize opposition?
	Because if the term Nazi can be applied indiscriminately or at least conveniently, don't we have to look at Nazis that are declared explicit and obvious and inconvenient Nazis that might be funded by the very establishment they're attempting to use that term to shut down conversation?
	So there is a real pressure and I think it is fair to say we're in a struggle between democracy and autocracy.
	Now of course Hillary Clinton stands for a particular type of neo-liberalist politics that ultimately supports the same financial interests that were ultimately in charge during the Bush-Cheney era and yet uses the rhetoric of progressivism when it's convenient.
	Another political figure that is aligned with those ideals, but also, I would argue, and let me know in the chat and the comments if you agree, quite oppressive when it comes to protest and free speech.
	Take, for example, the Canadian trucker movement is Justin Trudeau.
	I suppose what we're proposing here is there is the rhetoric of liberalism and freedom, and yet the behaviour of authoritarianism.
	Certainly we are not accusing people that we disagree with ideologically of being Nazis, because that is the kind of simplistic, reductive discourse that we need to move beyond.
	What we're pointing out is, there doesn't seem to be any moral centre in any of our establishment institutions, whether that's the media, the government, the corporate world or the judiciary, that allows us to freely trust Their moral position.
	That's why you have people that support their opponents dismissed as Nazis and actual Nazis, as in this clip, applauded in Parliament.
	Not to mention the complexity that we referred to earlier, where the Azov battalion continue to be funded by your taxpayer dollars.
	So what is a Nazi really?
	A standing ovation for a Ukrainian veteran of the Second World War.
	Defunct.
	Ukrainian independence against the Russians, and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98.
	In a sense, the mathematics, geography and history could have been looked at before the decision to honour that gentleman, who may well have been brave, but it has to be said, was a brave Nazi.
	And suddenly we're in some very complex moral territory.
	In an attempt to assume righteous posturing, Nazis are being applauded.
	Opponents are being shut down for being Nazis.
	I mean this is Canada where the trucker movement were dismissed as Nazis, shut down, their free speech was controlled because they were alleged to be Nazis for no real actual reason and yet a member of the Nazi party has just been celebrated in Parliament.
	Now obviously this was an error and a mistake but what it shows me, and I wonder if you agree with this, is there is no actual tethering to values and principles anymore.
	Language is just used.
	Adjudications are used.
	In order to meet a particular agenda.
	To control the public sphere.
	To shut down dissent and opposition.
	This person is a Nazi.
	That person's a Nazi.
	But what about these Nazis?
	We're funding those Nazis.
	What about this Nazi?
	We're applauding that Nazi.
	What this shows me is there's a kind of nihilism at the core of our culture.
	Our institutions are falling apart from the inside, observably.
	And this kind of peculiar moral morass is the observable symptom of a system that has no moral core.
	Invited by House Speaker Anthony Roda to witness Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's address to Parliament, Yaroslav Humka is one of his constituents.
	He's a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service.
	Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, a Nazi hero.
	The world's getting so complicated.
	Plainly, this is a ridiculous error, but it's also a window into the hollow, empty rhetoric
	that passes for politics these days.
	And this is what happens when nothing means anything anymore.
	When there's a locked on agenda that has to be pursued and justice can be discarded, meaning
	can be discarded, rights can be discarded, free speech can be discarded.
	Suddenly it's plausible that bank accounts can be shut down.
	People's financial lives, private lives can all be used as pieces on a chessboard that
	always has the same momentum.
	Centralised authority, shut down debate.
	That's why you'll notice that any crisis or trauma that's tossed into the machine, whether
	it's a climate crisis, a health crisis, or an energy crisis, a military crisis, always
	has the same result.
	The empowerment and enrichment of an elite and the disempowerment of ordinary people.
	This paradigm will be repeated endlessly, I predict, until none of us have any power at all.
	That was the jubilant scene Friday.
	Now new details have emerged about that war service MPs applauded.
	Hunka served in the 1st Galician Division, a voluntary unit commanded by the Nazis.
	The unit is complicit in the Holocaust.
	This Jewish human rights campaigner says there's no defending former soldiers like Hunka.
	You swore allegiance to Hitler and you were involved with the massacre of civilians.
	Rota has now apologized and says he regrets ever inviting him.
	In retrospect, I shouldn't have invited a Nazi on Yom Kippur.
	I'm afraid I was very drunk.
	It seems, I suppose, insensitive is the word.
	Does that word have any meaning anymore?
	Does anything mean anything anymore?
	I recognize an individual in the gallery.
	I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so.
	He says in a statement, I accept full responsibility for my actions.
	Still, the opposition is asking how this could happen.
	How it happens is no one has any regard for actual values.
	People care only for spectacle.
	Just the creation of a spectacle, the creation of some symbols.
	As long as it's generally moving in the direction of their agenda, they won't question the reality of it.
	That's how it happens because there's no earthed connection to reality.
	This is the cultural space that's being created.
	This is the cultural space that's being controlled.
	The Prime Minister's office says it wasn't aware the Speaker had invited Juncker, saying in a statement,
	no advance notice was provided to the Prime Minister's office, nor the Ukrainian delegation, about the invitation
	or the recognition.
	And yet they applauded anyway, because they don't have any genuine values, they don't care for the actual truth,
	they just want to participate in a disempowering spectacle.
	Obviously it's extremely upsetting that this happened.
	The Speaker has acknowledged his mistake and has apologized.
	But this is something that is deeply embarrassing to the Parliament of Canada and, by extension, to all Canadians.
	I think particularly of Jewish MPs and all members of the Jewish community across the country who are celebrating Yom Kippur today.
	I think it's going to be really important that all of us push back against Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation.
	What?
	Russian propaganda?
	Russian disinformation?
	Didn't you just have a Nazi in Parliament and applaud him?
	Are you suggesting that somehow Putin was involved in that?
	You don't have to be a Putin apologist, and I'm certainly not one, to recognise that this event is not the fault of Vladimir Putin.
	This is the fault of a morally empty neoliberal establishment that will use symbols to create
	a narrative without questioning what they're actually doing because there's no meaning
	there.
	There is no meaning there.
	Just the service of elite interests and the provision of an apparently convenient narrative
	that because it's so hollow and vacuous will occasionally involve applauding Nazis on the
	eve of Yom Kippur because they've got no actual values.
	We continue our steadfast and unequivocal support for Ukraine as we did last week with
	announcing further measures to stand with Ukraine in Russia's illegal war against it.
	Well as long as the unequivocal support of Ukraine doesn't similarly involve the support of actual Nazis.
	And again you don't have to not be supportive of Ukrainian people or sympathetic to their plight or indeed pray for an end to this horrific and unnecessary war to To still be able to observe that there is a Nazi battalion being funded by your taxpayer dollars fighting within the Ukrainian army.
	There is a degree of complexity and nuance which is way beyond the ability of this current system to navigate.
	Liberal socialists and other progressives often claim that conservatives are in bed with the far right and Nazis.
	This repulsive term is sometimes used to describe conservatives themselves.
	Well that's just not going to work anymore.
	The political left can thank Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals for this after they unwittingly honoured a Nazi in Parliament.
	What an astonishing time it is, this story, just one of the indications of how crazy the world has become.
	Now obviously we can't bring you this evidently contentious content without support from our sponsors.
	That's why I'm incredibly grateful that Sticker Mule, one of the great sponsors of Stay Free with Russell Brand, are offering these six Stunning designs.
	They're only available in this pack.
	They're all made with Sticker Mule's Magic Touch.
	Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs.
	That's right, 10,000 ready to deliver to your address absolutely free.
	Just go to StickerMule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
	Thank you Sticker Mule for continuing to support our content in an extraordinary time, and thank you Canada for being so extraordinary in the people you're willing to honor.
	Let's get back into that.
	Antony Rota, the Speaker of the House, recognised one of his constituents, 98-year-old Yaroslav Honka, who was honoured during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's September 22nd visit.
	This is because politics is a spectacle now.
	They realise there's a Ukrainian veteran living in our constituency.
	Wouldn't it be fantastic to honour this Ukrainian veteran?
	Because it will look good and it will feel good, but it won't mean anything except applauding, in this instance, a Nazi.
	And unless you want to get into The complexity of war, the nature of good and evil.
	Solzhenitsyn's term that a line between good and evil runs not between nations, continents, races or creeds, but through every human heart.
	Then, that looks like an error.
	And I don't see any willingness to look at Solzhenitsyn's writing work, because he's Russian.
	Rota depicted Hunka as a Ukrainian-Canadian war veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians.
	And also called him a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we all thank him for his service.
	I mean, that's actually a considerable lack of knowledge of the Second World War, where it's commonly understood that Russia, the United States, Britain, and others were in alliance against the Nazis.
	Here's the problem.
	Hunker served in a unit which was renamed the 1st Ukrainian Division towards the end of the Second World War.
	That particular division is more well known under its previous names as either the SS Galicia Division or the 14th Waffen-Grenadier SS Division.
	It was a voluntary unit that was under the command of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and was accused of murdering innocent Jews and Poles.
	So it's sort of pretty frontline actual Nazism.
	This is not the kind of Nazism that is used linguistically to condemn opponents of neoliberalist vacuous politics.
	This is actual execution of innocent people on the basis of their nationality or race.
	Hunker received a standing ovation in the house.
	It's on the record.
	It will always be available on YouTube and other video clips.
	There's no way for the Trudeau liberals to ever escape it.
	Rota and his staff clearly had no idea there was a link between the 1st Ukrainian Division and the Nazis before inviting Hunker.
	Presumably or they wouldn't have invited him because PR is their business.
	Honesty and politics isn't.
	Government House leader Carina Gould also made this post on X on September the 24th.
	The speaker has made it clear that he was responsible for inviting this individual to the house.
	The government played no role.
	It did not know he would be there.
	The PM did not meet him.
	I'm deeply troubled this happened.
	I urge MPs to avoid politicizing this incident.
	You can't start politicising the Nazis.
	They were an apolitical organisation.
	In a sense, they were just hobbyists, really.
	You shouldn't drag them into the quagmire of the current divisive political debate.
	And again, what you see is an establishment that cares only about spectacle.
	Not about reality, that has to shut down dissent, that has to use derogatory language and condemnatory terms because there is no centre.
	There are no values at their core.
	The same way that they would willingly use a Nazi, they would use other terms for other minority groups and other oppressed groups to leverage and advance other arguments, I believe, in order to cause division and hatred and to mask the fact that there is no ethical centre to any of their actions because they are simply shepherding us towards a globalist, Centralized authoritarian dystopia.
	And if you want to look at some of our other videos, I've got the receipts for that statement.
	Here's another fact.
	A war monument dedicated to the 1st Ukrainian Division was defaced in the St.
	Vladimir Ukrainian Cemetery in Oakville, Ontario in July 2020.
	It was originally treated as a hate-motivated incident by police.
	Jewish groups and human rights advocates were furious, as they are today with the hunker revelation.
	The international media covered it from end to end, yet no liberal media made the connection to this Nazi-aligned volunteer unit that was in the news only three years ago.
	I suppose that's because of their certainty in their moral position, and a lack of true inquiry and journalistic integrity, and a desire simply to push a particular agenda, even when that agenda has inconvenient Nazis in it.
	Here's yet another fact.
	The Canadian government's blunder played right into the waiting hands of Vladimir Putin and Russia.
	Such sloppiness of memory is outrageous, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
	Many Western countries, including Canada, have raised a young generation that does not know who fought whom or what happened during the Second World War, and they know nothing about the threat of fascism.
	In a sense, this abandonment of history, this abandonment of the memory that there was an alliance between Russia, the United States, the UK, many other countries that stood against Nazism before ideological fissures appeared, is also an obscuring, I believe, of the possibility that peaceful, diplomatic solutions to the current conflict could be reached.
	That Russia Aren't alien and Nazi in spite of the obvious atrocities associated with Stalinism.
	It seems that there's a possibility that they are a nation with their own trajectory, their own agenda, even possibly their own imperialism and colonialism.
	To imagine that the neoliberal establishment of the United States of America in particular doesn't have a comparable agenda is especially naive.
	And it's by use of terms like Nazis and the shutting down of conversation and the closing down of dissent and the convenient appropriation of symbols that conversations like this are able to be continually avoided when they're the very conversations that are required.
	To further present the complexity of using a term like Nazi when Nazism continues to be a real thing in the world,
	here's a few headlines.
	The Guardian, Azov Fight as a Ukraine's Greatest Weapon,
	The Azov Causes Particular Concern Due to the Far-Right, Even Neo-Nazi Leanings of Many of Its Members,
	NBC News, Ukraine's Nazi Problem is Real,
	Neo-Nazis are Part of Some of Ukraine's Growing Ranks of Volunteer Battalions,
	One is the Azov Battalion.
	We mentioned that not to discredit Ukrainian people.
	not to discredit the right of Ukrainian people to warrant support.
	But in order to point out that there is a degree of complexity that is seldom handled by mainstream
	media and establishment politics, because they're not interested in complexity,
	they're interested in propaganda. Anyone that is interested in complexity is likely to be regarded
	as a dissenter, a Nazi, or worse, and shut down. Because they have no moral authority at their
	centre. You know that they operate at the service of establishment interests and that there are
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	across the cultural space to cause distraction, infraction, friction or
	conflict because there is no sense of righteousness. There is no sense of
	justice. There is no sense of beauty, truth, God. There is no vision for a
	better future at the core of this establishment. Only manage decline, only
	manage disconsent, only blame and condemnation. But that's just what I
	think. Let me know what you think in the chat. See you in a second.
	What extraordinary times we're living in where reality appears to be curated to
	an enormous degree.
	How do you manage reality?
	How do you manage perception?
	How do you manage information?
	Joining me now is Dr. Robert Epstein, a former Harvard psychology professor, author of 15 books and current director of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.
	Thank you very much for joining us today, doctor.
	My pleasure.
	One of the claims that you have made that is most astonishing, difficult almost to believe, is that Google are essentially able to curate and control reality.
	Google, that we all use as an ordinary tool in most people's lives, you claim can be used to drive and direct an agenda, that it can be used as a political tool and even weapon In particular, I'd like to ask you about your claim that Google was able to direct 6 million extra votes to Joe Biden.
	And obviously that's an incredibly contentious claim because talking about electoral fraud and electoral meddling seems to be one of the subjects that's Most difficult to discuss and has to be discussed with incredible caution.
	So can you tell me exactly what it is you mean by Google directing six million extra votes to a presumably preferred presidential candidate and how on earth Google would be able to do that?
	Well, I've been doing very rigorous scientific research on this topic for more than 11 years.
	And what should really shock you here is that people's preoccupation with election fraud and ballot stuffing and all that, that preoccupation, that obsession is actually engineered by Google and to a lesser extent other tech companies.
	There's nothing really there and that's what they do.
	They redirect attention like magicians do so that you won't look at them.
	That's exactly what they're doing.
	So they're directing us to look at things that are very trivial,
	that are competitive, that have little net effect on elections,
	because they don't want you looking at them.
	Because they, in fact, have the power and use the power to shift millions of votes in elections,
	not just in the US election in 2020, where they did indeed shift more than 6 million votes
	to Joe Biden, but in elections around the world.
	By the year 2015, Google alone was determining the outcomes of upwards of 25%
	of the national elections in the world.
	How do we know this?
	Well, in 2020, for example, we had 1,735 field agents in four swing states in the U.S.
	That's where the action is.
	What does that mean?
	That means that we had recruited registered voters, equipped them with special software, So that we could look over their shoulders as they're getting content from Google and other tech companies.
	And we recorded all that content.
	In other words, we were seeing the real content that they're sending to real voters during the days leading up to an election.
	And then we measured the bias in that content.
	We found extreme political bias favoring Joe Biden, whom I actually supported, although I no longer do.
	The point is we found extreme political bias and we know from randomized controlled experiments we've been conducting since 2013 that that level of bias shifted at least 6 million votes to Biden in that election.
	In 2022, we had 2,742 field agents in 10 swing states.
	So in other words, we're monitoring real content sent to real voters by these companies Recording it in real time and analyzing it in real time.
	In 2022, they shifted millions of votes in hundreds of midterm elections throughout the US.
	We know they did this for Brexit by the way in the UK.
	And again, they're very good at redirecting attention.
	What we're doing now is much, much bigger.
	We decided to build a permanent monitoring system in all 50 U.S.
	states.
	At this moment in time, we have 11,638 field agents in all 50 states, which means 24 hours a day, we are monitoring and preserving and archiving ephemeral content.
	That's what they use to manipulate us.
	Ephemeral content through the computers of more than 11,000 registered voters in the U.S.
	24 hours a day.
	We're on the verge of setting up a permanent system like this that will keep these companies away from our elections and from our kids permanently.
	Whilst I understand that you're able, with these agents that you described, to monitor the information that Google is publishing, promoting and directing, it does seem to be, given the sort of literally global scale of the endeavor that Google are undertaking, to be a relatively small sample size.
	I will add, of course, that I understand that there are significant contracts that are explicit between Google and the government in areas like data, security, military, industrial, complex, defence.
	There are explicit financial ties, as well as donations and lobbying money, as well as numerous people in Congress and the Senate owning significant shares in companies, big tech companies, particularly in this instance that they're supposed to regulate.
	So the possibility and opportunity for corruption is plainly there.
	But I do wonder how you're able, with that sample size, to deduce such a significant number, specifically 6 million.
	And also the other figure that I've heard in association with your work, that a 50-50
	split among undecided voters, you know, I know we're talking about swing states anyway,
	can turn into a 9-10 split.
	How do you map these relatively small figures onto such a global number?
	And also you suggested that part of your work going forward is to regulate and oppose this
	trend and tendency.
	How would you do that?
	You're shocking me here because you sound skeptical and yet you have been victimized
	by exactly these kinds of manipulations and are being victimized now.
	You've been victimized because you have been suppressed.
	Your content has been suppressed.
	You've been demonetized.
	These companies have enormous power to determine what people see and what people don't see.
	And what we measure in our experiments is how that impacts people's opinions And people's votes, their voting preferences.
	That's what we measure in controlled experiments.
	We present at scientific meetings.
	We publish in peer-reviewed journals.
	Our work follows the very highest standards of scientific integrity.
	And this issue of sample size, you've got that backwards.
	These are enormous sample sizes for statistical and analytical purposes.
	These are very, very large samples.
	And so the effects that we keep Replicating over and over again, other teams have now replicated.
	Those are significant, for those of you who know any stats here, at the .001 level, meaning the probability that we're making mistakes is less than one in a thousand.
	We're highly confident about what we've been finding, and the problem here is that we're up against The most powerful mind control machine that's ever been developed by humankind.
	And it's operating in every country in the world except mainland China.
	And it impacts, you know, how people see those companies.
	They're impacting not just our elections.
	They're not just indoctrinating our kids.
	They're literally altering the way we perceive them as a company.
	That's extremely dangerous.
	And most of these manipulations that they have access to now, that they control exclusively because they're a monopoly, most of these manipulations cannot be seen by the people who are being manipulated.
	That makes it even more dangerous.
	So your ability to observe them and to track them, it operates against what type of control?
	If you're able to say that people are being sent this information that's highly biased, what would unbiased information look like?
	I'm open, of course, to the possibility that this unprecedented and fully immersive technology would be used by people that have an appetite to control information and it seems quite plain to me.
	That that does happen, but because it's so extraordinary and revelatory, because it's so significant and if it were able to be opposed it could be so seismic in our ability to have true democracy and a public sphere worthy of the name where dissent and conversation could take place freely.
	I feel that it's important that I understand exactly how that, not exactly because of probably the limitations of my ability to understand, but As precisely as I might.
	The way that you're able to say, look, this would constitute neutral information.
	Look at what you're actually getting.
	Because I feel that it's very important.
	Again, you're shocking me because you're being the skeptic here, but you know, good scientists are also skeptics, and there's no one more skeptical about the research I do than me.
	So let me give you an example, and I'll just show you exactly how this works.
	In 2020, where we had collected a massive amount of data, we had preserved more than 1.5 million ephemeral experiences on Google and other platforms, and you're asking, Ephemeral experiences?
	What are those?
	Those are those fleeting experiences that we all have online when we're shown search suggestions or answer boxes or search results or news feeds.
	They appear, they impact you, they disappear, they're stored nowhere so no one can go back in time and see what was being done.
	That's what we've learned to preserve over the years.
	So here we go, 2020.
	We find, again, massive overwhelming evidence of extreme bias.
	We've preserved 1.5 million ephemeral experiences.
	And I sent the data in to the office of Senator Ted Cruz.
	He and two other senators sent a very threatening letter to the CEO of Google.
	This was November 5th, 2020, two days after the presidential election.
	And lo and behold, that same day, Google turned off all the bias in the state of Georgia, which was gearing up for two Senate runoff elections in January.
	We saw them turn the bias off.
	It literally like flipping a light switch, as I was told by a Google whistleblower, literally like flipping a light switch.
	We had more than a thousand field agents in Georgia.
	So we saw the extreme bias that was being shown.
	We saw them turn it off.
	Among other things, they stopped sending partisan go vote reminders.
	In other words, they were sending go vote reminders mainly to members of one party.
	But on that day in Georgia.
	No one got Go Vote reminders from Google anymore.
	So, believe me, they have this power, they exercise this power.
	This is now being confirmed by multiple leaks from the company.
	For example, emails that were leaked to the Wall Street Journal, in which Google employees were discussing, how can we use And I can put this in quotes, ephemeral experiences to change people's views about Trump's travel ban.
	This has been confirmed by multiple whistleblowers, leaks of documents, leaks of videos, of a PowerPoint presentation.
	This is how the company operates.
	They literally know that they have the power to re-engineer humanity.
	That is a leak.
	That's a leak of a video called The Selfish Ledger from Google.
	Literally, that's what the video is all about.
	And that's what we're tracking.
	In other words, we're doing to them what they do to us and our kids 24 hours a day.
	We have learned how to surveil them and to preserve that very, very powerful ephemeral content, which normally is never preserved.
	And they never in a million years imagined That anyone would be sophisticated enough, competent enough, audacious enough to preserve that content.
	And that's what we are doing.
	And as of this moment in time, we have preserved in recent months more than 44 million ephemeral experiences on Google and other platforms.
	We have the data, we have the evidence, and it's court admissible.
	Wow.
	So that's fascinating.
	So presumably there are relationships and an agenda where interests converge to the degree where there is an established and undemocratic consensus about the nature of this reality that's being formulated, i.e.
	this is the data that is promoted, this is the information that's amplified, this is the information that's censored, this is the information that people just don't get to see.
	I wonder if when you presumably began to garner your expertise and education in behaviouralism, tools of this magnitude didn't exist and were not available.
	Throughout the pandemic period there was a lot of talk about nudge units, certainly in our country there were, how behavioural nudges could be offered and sort of BF Skinner type nomenclature about how behaviour can be controlled, how certain traits can be amplified, certain impressions can be projected and promoted and others maligned, ignored.
	I wonder how your expertise and background in behaviouralism, Robert, maps onto this new reality, and what advantages they now have, having this kind of utility.
	How does this, how does this, what do I want to say, how does this marry to your conventional understanding of behaviouralism in a normal propagandist state, like in the last century, where there'd been print media and TV media, And can you tell us what techniques of observation and measurement are preserved and have sustained what must be an epochal shift?
	I was the last doctoral student at Harvard University of B.F.
	Skinner, a man who some would say helped to create behavioral psychology.
	And Skinner himself did not anticipate what has actually happened.
	He would be shocked.
	If he hadn't been cremated, I would say he'd be rolling over in his grave right now.
	Because what is happening is astonishing.
	It's just, it's unprecedented.
	Companies like Google, and there are others too, but they're the worst offender.
	Companies like Google now have access because of the internet to new types of manipulations.
	These aren't nudges.
	These are massive manipulations.
	I mean, when we started doing experiments, controlled experiments on these new techniques,
	which we had to discover, we had to name, and then we had to learn how to quantify them,
	I didn't believe our data.
	In the first experiment we ran in 2013, I thought by showing people biased search results,
	I could shift their voting preferences by two or 3%, which I thought would be, you know,
	important possibly in a close election.
	The first shift we got was 43%, which I thought was incorrect.
	So we repeated the experiment.
	These are not with college sophomores, by the way.
	This is with a representative sample of U.S.
	voters.
	And the fact is, we repeated that experiment.
	We got a shift of 66%.
	We continued to replicate.
	Other teams have replicated this effect.
	We did a national survey in the U.S.
	We did research in India, research in the U.K.
	This has been going on now for more than 11 years.
	This is rock solid research and Skinner himself would be flabbergasted.
	Because what we're seeing now are techniques for shifting people's thinking and behavior without their knowledge on a massive scale to an extent that has never been possible before in human history.
	That's what the internet has made available.
	This wouldn't necessarily be that much of a threat, except for the fact that the way the internet has evolved, which no one anticipated, is it's controlled mainly by two big monopolies, to a lesser extent by a couple of other monopolies.
	And because they're monopolies, it means that these techniques of control, we can't counter.
	If you, in an election, you support a candidate, and you buy a billboard, I can buy another billboard.
	You buy a TV commercial, I can buy two TV commercials.
	But if one of these big platforms, like Google, if they want to support a candidate, or they want to support a Brexit vote, or they want to support a political party, there is nothing you can do to counter what they're doing.
	What we've developed are systems to surveil them, to preserve the evidence, preserve the data.
	That's the only way I know of To stop them is by gathering the evidence in a way that is, again, scientifically valid, so that the data are admissible in court, and that is what we're doing right now.
	If people want to know the details, they can go to mygoogleresearch.com, they can go to techwatchproject.org.
	MyGoogleResearch.com will give them lots and lots of links to lots of published papers, lots of talks I've given.
	This is serious work, and what's happening here, again, our attention is being misdirected away from what they're doing, but what's happening here, what they're really doing, is extremely dangerous and very scary.
	It undermines democracy.
	It makes democracy into a kind of a joke, and Since you haven't interrupted me, Ed, thank God, I want to just tell you that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was head of Allied Forces in World War II, I mean, he was an insider.
	In the last speech he gave as president in 1961, some people are aware that he talked about the rise of a military-industrial complex and, you know, but that same speech, he warned about the rise of a technological elite.
	This was 1961.
	He warned about the rise of a technological elite that could someday control public policy without people's knowledge.
	And that is what has happened.
	The technological elite are now in control.
	Oh my God, it's terrifying.
	One of the things that you covered there was, I suppose, the monopolization, or at best, duopolization.
	of the public space.
	Sometimes when I have something of this scale described to me, Robert, I find it inconceivable to envisage that it could ever be opposed.
	And yet there's something oddly traditional about the dynamic suggested by this.
	We once believed that, in a sense, it was the function of the evolved state to preserve and protect the interests of the public Against corporate behemoths and corporate gigantism.
	Now we have a gigantism that's unprecedented, way beyond the instantiations of a previous century where it would have been steel and minerals and resources.
	But attention and consciousness itself is the faculty, is the object of this monopolization.
	And it's extraordinary to hear how effective they are at managing and manipulating. And to
	46% or 66%, these numbers are sort of astonishing to hear.
	I wonder what you think about Google's attempt to overturn that 2.6 billion dollar EU antitrust
	fine.
	I wonder what you think about, for example, we know we're on Rumble, that when Rumble covered the Republican primaries, it was apparently very difficult to find on Google.
	And I wonder, perhaps most of all, about whether or not, given that it appears that there is a political bias built into the system's current modality, whether or not an alliance with the alternative political party is a possibility in order to regulate and break up these monopolies, because that would seem to be the only way that it could be challenged.
	And that's the sort of traditional component that I'm Referring to unless you have some kind of like other than the state or an incredibly mobilized population even with the information that you are curating and compiling.
	How do you ever challenge something of this scale?
	It can be challenged, but the antitrust actions that are currently being used in the EU and also in the United States were actually designed by Google's legal team.
	They're absolute shams, complete shams.
	It makes it look like our public officials are doing something to protect us.
	They're not.
	Uh, Google works closely with governments around the world, even with the government of mainland China, uh, and works closely with intelligence agencies around the world.
	Uh, the, the, the people at Google know that no one can ever break them up because you can't break up the search engine.
	That's their main tool.
	If you broke up the search engine, it wouldn't work.
	Facebook knows this too.
	You can't break up their basic social media platform.
	That would be like putting a Berlin wall through the every family in the world.
	So.
	Are there ways to stop them?
	Yes, but antitrust actions aren't going to do much.
	What could be done though is you could declare, this is very light touch regulation, there's precedent for it in law, there's precedent for it in Google's business practices, is that you could declare the index, the database they use to generate search results, you could declare that to be a public commons.
	The EU could do it.
	In other words, you would allow other parties, other companies, high school students, you'd allow them to build their own search engine with access to Google's index.
	You'd end up with thousands of search engines all competing for our attention, all trying to attract niche audiences exactly like the news media domain.
	That's exactly what happens in news media.
	That could be done simply by giving everyone access to Google's index.
	Google would fight it in court, of course, and we'd see what happens, but that's one way.
	But the only sure way that I know of to stop these companies Because they're affecting not just our elections, but our thinking, what we focus on.
	They're in control of what content we see, such as your content, and what content we don't see, such as your content.
	The only way to really stop them is through monitoring.
	Because by monitoring, what happens is we preserve their manipulations.
	We preserve them.
	We can make them public 24 hours a day.
	We can share the findings with public officials, both in the US and other countries.
	And give people, give organizations, give government agencies, give political campaigns the power they need to bring effective legal action against Google.
	Because we're talking about massive Uh, massive amounts of data collected in a scientifically rigorous way.
	Give you one quick example of how hard it is to find them if you don't have the data.
	Last year, the Republican National Party sued Google because Google was, uh, was diverting tens of millions of emails that the Republican Party was sending to the Republicans.
	And Google was diverting all those emails into spam boxes.
	So the Republican Party sued them.
	That case got thrown out of court.
	Why?
	They didn't have sufficient data to prove their claim.
	Now Google was really doing this, and we were not monitoring that.
	We are now.
	The point is, We can monitor what they're doing, preserve the data on a very large scale.
	That can be used in the courts and that can be used with various government agencies.
	And will they stop what they're doing?
	Yes.
	How do we know that?
	Because in 2020, when we shared our data with some U.S.
	Senators, they sent a threatening letter to the CEO of Google and Google stopped.
	They'll have to stop if they know that they're being monitored on a massive scale 24 hours a day, worldwide eventually, by the way.
	We've already been approached by five other countries asking us to help set up monitoring systems.
	If these tech execs know that their data are being captured, that we're doing to them what they do to us and our kids 24 hours a day, that we're monitoring them, we're preserving data that they thought could never be preserved.
	They will stop because you know why?
	They can still make billions of dollars.
	They don't have to at the same time be messing with our thinking, be messing with our elections, and especially be messing with our kids.
	One of the new areas of research that we've started is looking at data coming onto the devices of more than 2,000 children throughout the U.S.
	We're just beginning to look at that and our heads are spinning because what these companies are sending to kids is just unbelievable and parents are unaware.
	There's a kind of social engineering occurring here on a massive scale that people are unaware of.
	You can see it in leaks from Google.
	You can see this.
	That this is the intention of some of the top people at that company is to make a better world according to quote-unquote company values.
	That's actually in a video that leaked from the company that was about the power the company has to re-engineer humanity.
	Literally, they're using the phrase according to company values.
	We can stop them.
	The first step is to be aware of what it is they're doing.
	It sounds like the kind of...
	banalized dystopia described both by Huxley and David Foster Wallace to a degree in Infinite Jest, a sort of a corporatized cultural space where the ideologies are masked in the kind of language of convenience, safety, no real moral spikes, no real ideological thrusts, you know, until there are, but mostly it's kind of
	present in normalcy different.
	I suppose that in order to significantly change society, you have to change the parameters of
	what people regard as normal significantly. Now, one of the things that you've talked about is the
	possibility of dissent and the likelihood of dissent being closed down in such a space.
	What do you think is the role of independent media within this space?
	How can independent media Succeed in such a highly controlled and curated space.
	And what do we have to do to ensure that independent voices are able to be heard in a space like this?
	I'm very encouraged by the way, by what you say about the monitoring, the effectiveness of monitoring this does seem to, you know, somewhat slow and curtail the proclivities of this organisation in particular.
	And the possibility for sharing that tech and, you know, making Google search stuff open source.
	That does seem like an amazing way of dissolving that power.
	But what do we do in particular about the sort of news media organizations like this one that necessarily exist within a space that's controlled to that degree?
	Well, at the moment, you're in grave danger.
	I mean, that's the bottom line.
	At the moment, independent media of any sort are in grave danger.
	One of the most remarkable pieces ever written about this problem, long before, by the way, he ever became aware of my research, was written by the head of the EU's largest publishing conglomerate, the German.
	And he published a long letter in English and in German called Fear of Google.
	And it was about how his company, they're in constant fear of Google and every decision they make, every business decision they make, they have to make in such a way as to not offend Google.
	Because when Google decides to suppress content, for example, to demote you in their search results or delete you, there's nothing you can do.
	There's no recourse at all.
	And you are now out of business.
	And that's the environment in which we live.
	So no matter what content you want to contribute to the world, and I'm speaking of you personally here, it's a whim on their part.
	You're literally under the influence of whims at that company.
	about whether you can continue to get your message out.
	They've done this repeatedly with independent news sources.
	They have reduced their traffic to 10% of what it was.
	They can do that with the flip of a switch.
	And by the way, that was confirmed to me by one of the whistleblowers from Google.
	I'm in touch with a lot of the whistleblowers.
	I'm in touch with people at Google who haven't even blown the whistle yet.
	So I know way, way, way too much about what's going on there.
	But they, yes, at the moment, They have that power.
	They decide what more than 5 billion people around the world can see and cannot see.
	And at the moment, there is no way to counteract what they're doing.
	In the U.S., the courts have said over and over again, when they have, for example, shut down hundreds of websites belonging to one particular company, yes, they have that ability.
	They can block websites.
	They block millions of websites every day.
	March 31st, 2009, they blocked access to the entire internet for 40 minutes.
	That was reported by The Guardian and that was never denied by the company.
	I eventually figured out, by the way, why they chose those particular 40 minutes to shut down the internet.
	The point is they have this incredible power.
	They use this incredible power.
	The courts in the U.S.
	have said they have every right to do that because they're a private company.
	And see, that's the problem here.
	In other words, even though I agree with a lot of their values because I lean left myself politically, I don't like the idea of a private company that's not accountable to us, to any public, having this kind of power.
	That's the problem here.
	The problem is not necessarily their values.
	The problem is the power that they have and that they're utilizing without any accountability.
	To us, to any population, any group of people around the world, they're simply not accountable.
	I hope some of your viewers find that to be objectionable.
	I hope some of your viewers will go to mygoogleresearch.com because this big national monitoring system that we started setting up last year, I had raised about $3 million to get us going on it.
	It's going extremely well.
	We've preserved now more than 44 million ephemeral experiences.
	We have a panel nationwide of more than 11,000 field agents in all 50 U.S.
	states, because we've got to get the system going here fully before we start helping other countries.
	But the fact is that $3 million is now almost gone.
	I need access to other major funding.
	One of our advisors is trying to get us in touch with people in Switzerland who he feels might be very interested.
	Are there people in Europe or in the UK who could help us?
	Because this system has to exist.
	This is not optional for humanity.
	If we don't monitor them, we will never know.
	I'll make a specific statement.
	If this system is not fully running next year in the United States, with all of our data being shared with authorities and with the public every single day, if this system is not there, Google alone will be able to shift between 6.4 and 25.5 million votes in the presidential election of 2024 without anyone knowing what they're doing, without anyone being able to go back in time and look at all that ephemeral content.
	That's what we're up against here.
	That's why we must have systems like this, monitoring systems in place, that catch the data that they thought could never be caught.
	That's what we've learned how to do.
	I need your help and your audience help in making this happen.
	This horrifying power that you described, already present, already active, already operating according to your data, is as yet un-augmented by a fully capable AI technology.
	What are your thoughts on how the AI component will advance these capacities and what do you feel about, for example, the sort of chatbot story and the talk of sentience and, you know, the sacking of software engineer Blake Lemoine or Lemien or whatever his name was.
	What do you feel about that, Doc?
	AI is part of the story, obviously.
	It is also potentially dangerous in its own right.
	It will make these capabilities that they have even more powerful.
	For example, we just finished, in fact, I've not announced this publicly, this will be my first announcement, but we've just finished our first exploration of what we call DPE, the Digital Personalization Effect.
	And what we've shown is that if we show people biased content, we can produce shifts easily of 20% or more in their voting preferences.
	If we personalize the content, which of course Google is famous for doing, if we personalize it based on some things we know about those people and what kinds of media sources they trust and news sources and celebrities, if we personalize the content so it's coming from sources they personally trust, That shift goes up to over 70% from 20% shift to 70% shift.
	That's just by personalizing and AI.
	Of course makes it much, much easier and smoother to personalize content.
	That's one of the main dangers here.
	So the fact that these companies have always relied on AI to some extent, and now we're relying on it more and more makes them more powerful and far more dangerous.
	All the more reason why we have to capture the ephemeral content that they use to manipulate people.
	And I'm going to say it a third time, MyGoogleResearch.com, because we are desperately in need of help.
	I'm just being honest with you.
	I mean, we desperately need help.
	We can't do this ourselves.
	I have a team of almost 50 people helping, working on this day and night.
	A lot of them are volunteers.
	It's very, very difficult what we're doing.
	It's never been done before.
	But we're doing it, and we're doing it well.
	And we need people's help to make sure that this can be done on a larger scale.
	For those of you out there who care about such things, all donations are going to a 501c3 public charity.
	They're all fully tax deductible.
	I'm so sorry that I have to keep interrupting with this begging for money, but that's the reality.
	What we're doing is expensive.
	It's new.
	It's important.
	It's extremely important.
	It sounds important in a way that's almost difficult to conceive of.
	When you were talking before about the impact of personalized data, it made me realize that we're simply not evolved to live in a world where information can be curated in that manner.
	I imagine I imagine that the roots of behaviouralism must have, you know, a component that's anthropological and ethnographic and how we are evolved to relate to one another and how we're evolved to trust sources of information, how a consensus between a group is established.
	And to have tools that can wallpaper your reality like a kind of chrome sphere surrounding your mind is...
	It's in a sense beyond sugar in terms of an agent of interruption, stimulation and control.
	So I recognize how important what you're doing is.
	I can hear that you're necessarily evangelical about continuing the work because it sees Mick and pertains to cornerstones of our As yet still called civilisation, like democracy, like judiciary, like the ability to have open conversations, like important principles around which we presumed society was being built but for a while have suspected that in a sense these are simply gestures that are put in place while real power does what real power wants to do.
	And that kind of power with this kind of utility is truly terrifying.
	Can you speak for a moment about the aspect of, from a behaviouralist perspective, how we are not, you know, because in a sense, right, I'm a person, obviously, and I imagine that I'd be able to go, oh, well, I'm getting very biased information here from Google.
	How is it that we simply are not able to discern, tackle, remain objective, keep some kind of distance from this experience?
	Why is it so powerful, almost from an anthropological and behavioral perspective?
	A couple of issues there.
	First of all, most people can't see bias in the content that's being presented to them.
	So those people are very easy to shift.
	And in some demographic groups, you can easily shift upwards of 80% of voting preferences.
	Some people are just very, very vulnerable to this kind of manipulation because they trust companies like Google, they trust algorithmic output because they have no idea what algorithms are.
	They trust computers because they think computers are inherently objective.
	So you've got all that working against you.
	And then there's another factor, which is really, really scary.
	In some of the big studies that we've done, there's always a small group of people who do see the bias.
	Now, it's a small group, but with a big enough study, you know, that group is large enough for us to look at them separately.
	And here's the thing.
	The people who see the bias, they shift even farther in the direction of the bias.
	Now, how can that be?
	Why would that be?
	Well, because, presumably, they're thinking, well, I can see there's bias here, and of course, Google is objective, or computer output is objective, or algorithms are objective, so, and it's clearly It's clearly preferring that candidate over this candidate.
	So that candidate really must be the best.
	And those shifts, the shifts among the people who can see the bias are larger than the shifts among the people who can't see the bias.
	So, you know, there are no protections here.
	This is a whole new world of influence and manipulation.
	The only protection that I know of for sure that works Is by doing to them what they do to us.
	By surveilling them, capturing the data so that it can be looked at carefully by authorities and courts.
	You know, I'll tell you something.
	The UK and the EU, as you know, have been far more aggressive against Google in particular than any government agency in the US.
	Because, you know, it's a US company.
	So the EU has fined Google over and over again, more than 10,000, excuse me, 10 million euros in fines, also big fines in the UK.
	You know what?
	It has no impact on these companies whatsoever.
	They've ordered Google to do this and that.
	Google has completely ignored them.
	What is lacking in the EU and the UK.
	It's a monitoring system to measure compliance with whatever the new laws and regulations are.
	But there are no monitoring systems in the EU and the UK and Google knows that.
	They completely ignore all of these various agreements and orders because no one is monitoring.
	No monitoring means you can't measure compliance.
	Well, I imagine we're going to have to be pretty clear about how to find your work, because I don't imagine it comes up very easily on a Google search.
	Dr. Robert Epstein, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Thank you for conveying this complex information in such an Easy to understand in spite of the vastness of the task and the scale of the challenge.
	Thanks for giving us some suggestions of what a solution might look like and making it clear this is something that's happening right now and how difficult it is to detect and yet there is a way to oppose it and I would recommend that all of you learn more about Dr. Robert's work by going to drrobertepstein.com and mygoogleresearch.com.
	Doctor, thank you so much for joining us.
	I'm sure we'll be talking again, although these conversations might be difficult to find online.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	That shows you the necessity of supporting us by clicking the red Awaken button and joining and supporting our community.
	Without a direct connection to you, it's going to become increasingly difficult to communicate with you in a curated and controlled cultural space.
	On the show tomorrow, we have Glenn Greenwald.
	Imagine the information that he's going to be able to convey on this subject, as well as war, the pandemic, legacy media, corruption.
	If you do become an Awakened Wonder and join our community, and I urge you to do that, you've just heard what Dr. Robert Epstein has described, almost a necessity to do that, you'll get access to guided meditations, readings, questions and answers.
	And I want to thank you that have recently become new annual supporters like Truthfulergave, Barloo, Lucky Lou, Magic Peace, Love Ray, Pardon, Snuffle Dog, The Kennedys, Freddie, Flintstone, and so many more.
	Thank you for joining us.
	We really need you now more than ever.
	Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, we'd never insult you with that, but for more of the different.

▲