Best of the Program | Guest: Michael Rectenwald | 9/30/19

Hey podcasters, it's Glenn and Stu and we've got a great program for you today.

Yes, another epic podcast.

This week is actually a week you don't want to miss on either Radio the Podcast or on Blaze TV.

We're doing a special on Thursday night at 9.30 and it's explaining this Ukrainian Trump Biden Democratic scandal.

And a scandal it is, probably one of the more important scandals of my lifetime.

This is going to be bigger than Watergate.

And

I want you to see it this week.

We are today talking about the whistleblower, his first-hand knowledge,

how

this actually started in 2016.

with the Democrats, everything the Democrats have started to accuse Donald Trump of with Russia.

maybe they thought that was going on because that's exactly what they were doing in Ukraine.

And we lay out some of that evidence.

Also, Hillary thinks that Trump is obsessed with her.

I think she's gone insane.

All this and more on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

There's a couple of things that the mainstream media are not going to tell you about that are very important, and they will be exposed in full detail.

And we'll tie this whole story together for you on Thursday.

Please subscribe to the Blaze right now.

Your subscription to the Blaze allows us to spend the money to do the

investigative reporting that we're doing now and tie all these things together.

And I can't tell you how critical

your subscription is to the Blaze.

If you're already a subscriber, thank you so much.

And if you'd like to become one, we'll give you $10 off your yearly subscription now at blazetv.com slash Glenn.

Promo code Glenn to save the 10%.

Now,

there's a couple of things.

First of all, the whistleblower came out last week, and he said that Trump said at least eight times that he needed a big favor, and he wanted Rudy Giuliani.

That's not true.

He brought Rudy Giuliani up twice, and the president of the Ukraine was the first one to bring him up, not Donald Trump.

He also said

that

what was the other one that was just debunked this weekend?

I mean, this is a central part of the whistleblower complaint, which is to say that,

look, there is a

this particular transcript of this call was hidden.

This is the biggest thing.

It was moved over to a super secret vault.

Exactly.

And that was, if you read the actual report, which we have, you see that really what it is, is an outline of publicly available information, like things Rudy Giuliani said on television, things the president tweeted, all that's in there, with a couple of additions.

I've heard there's a call with Ukraine where this was discussed and it the the transcript was moved to the super secret place to hide it so that shows that it was they knew it was something bad that is central to the argument of the whistleblower case already

this is monday when did this thing come out thursday mm-hmm we're only on monday of the next week and already that point by the mainstream is already accepted by the mainstream media that well no they were doing that with all the transcripts.

They were doing that with all the transcripts because, as you might remember, the Mexico and Australia calls with the president were leaked to the media.

So, they, to fight those leaks, pulled all these transcripts and started putting them in the super secret vault.

So, this whistleblower didn't realize that or didn't put it together, or the rumors they heard didn't include that information.

And so, they made it a central part of their case to say, look,

this was secret.

That shows it was a problem because it was hidden behind this super secret vault.

The media has already accepted the Trump administration position on this, which is, oh, actually, they were doing it because of these initial early leaks.

What's incredible is this whistleblower has zero credibility.

Zero.

Eight times, he said the president made him a promise.

He never made him a promise.

Asked him for a favor and said, I'm going to hold things back on your defense unless you help me.

He never said that.

Nothing like it.

The media had to edit out 543 words between

I Have a Favor and also

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

Had to edit out

about 540 words.

The guy has no credibility.

Now we find out that the super secret vault is something they do with all of the phone calls.

This is why you don't take second-hand knowledge.

But let me give you something else that just broke this weekend.

We don't know when,

but the intelligence community in the last few months secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblowers provide direct first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.

Now, this was the intelligence community that changed their form

and this wasn't uploaded until September 24th 2019 at 425 in the afternoon that is just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public

the markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019 but no specific date of revision is disclosed so the document was revised in August of this year by the intelligence community.

Then it was only told to the public just a couple of days before this whistleblower report came out.

Now,

what was the claim from the media?

That Donald Trump was trying to hold this whistleblower report back, and all of these things were always reported to Congress.

Wasn't that the case?

These always went to Congress.

No whistleblower in the history of whistleblowers, no whistleblower has ever been held back from Congress.

Okay.

The

IG

report talks about how this guy, the attorney, the investigator general, had to look at it and say, well, this guy,

he doesn't have any first-hand knowledge.

So, no, I'm not going to give this to Congress.

That's Donald Trump trying to stop this investigation.

I want you to listen to what it used to say

up until this whistleblower.

It says,

first-hand information required.

Now, this is the form that if you have, if you're a whistleblower, you have to fill out.

And on

page eight, it said, first-hand information required.

Here's the explanation.

In order to find an urgent concern credible,

the ICIG must be in possession of reliable first-hand information.

The ICIG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

This information includes any information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he or she witnessed some sort of wrongdoing.

Anyone with first-hand knowledge of the allegations may file a disclosure in writing directly with the ICIG.

Similarly, speculation about the existence of wrongdoing does not provide sufficient legal basis to meet the statutory requirements of the ICWPA.

If you think that wrongdoing took place but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertations or assertions, the ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

Could it be more clear?

You cannot do this.

Why?

Well, we know why.

Because we have now an impeachment hearing based on a guy who said, the president said at least eight times, the president made a promise.

He said that he was going to withhold things unless

the

transcript was held in a super secret vault because they never do that and there was nothing classified in this, so why did they do it?

He's hiding something.

All of those assertions have been wrong.

All of them.

Why?

Because this isn't the guy's job.

This guy is not in line here.

He heard other people talk about it.

So it's nothing to do with his job.

The reason why the intelligence community doesn't listen to whispers is because how many times in your life have whispers about you been right?

Our intelligence community requires people who are not dealing in rumors.

Imagine we go to war because there's a rumor of things and no one has first-hand knowledge.

Oh, I know.

You know what's weird?

Kind of like when we went into Iraq saying that there were chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

What was the left screaming for?

They were screaming for evidence.

We have considerably more evidence on that than we do on this.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, look, when you're talking about secondhand information like this, maybe that's good enough for a tweet, but it's good enough for a whistleblower report.

I don't think so.

And one of the things that some on the right are saying is we need to know who this person is.

We need to interview them.

We need to know what they know.

Well, that's putting him in danger.

The president might kill him.

Right.

Yeah, they are.

By the way, that was reported by, I think, 60 Minutes that the whistleblower is getting death threats, and that's why they're under witness protection.

Seems like the whistleblower's own attorney is disagreeing with that and calling out 60 Minutes on that leak.

But beyond all that, what is the value of talking to this person?

Well, who cares?

He's just reporting secondhand information.

No, no, no, no.

Listen,

in the report, his own report,

he says, I I have received information from multiple U.S.

government officials.

He also says officials have informed me.

Officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me.

The White House officials who told me this information.

I was told by White House officials, the officials I spoke with.

I was told that a State Department official.

I learned from multiple U.S.

officials.

One White House official described this act.

Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me.

You're not even seeing them.

I also learned from multiple U.S.

officials.

The U.S.

officials characterized this meeting.

Multiple U.S.

officials told me.

I learned from U.S.

officials.

I also learned from a U.S.

official.

Several U.S.

officials told me.

I heard from multiple U.S.

officials and multiple U.S.

officials told me.

So he only says that I don't know anything myself.

Right.

So is it digging for the sources?

Is that the value you're talking to this person?

No, there's no reason to talk to this person.

There's no reason to listen to this person.

The only reason why we know this story is because, and if you want to talk about deep state,

then the intelligence community should stop doing these things.

If you don't want people thinking there's a deep state, then the intelligence community should stop in the cover of night sometime in August of 2019.

That's just about a month and a half ago.

Sometime in August, August, they changed the whistleblower requirements.

Now, I just read that paragraph to you about how you cannot be getting

secondhand.

Now, it just says, question three:

I know about the information I'm disclosing here, and you check the box.

I have direct and personal knowledge, or I heard about it from others.

Why would you change that?

Why would you change that?

Unless you're just trying to get rumors out,

which is weird because that's what the Democrats did with the Russia file.

And everybody said we've got to impeach him right away.

And then there was an investigation, and what turned out?

Nothing.

This is the same story over and over and over again.

And somebody needs to pay a price.

The best of the Glenbeck Beck program

hey it's Glenn and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program if you like what you're hearing on this show make sure you check out Pat Gray unleashed it's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts give me the strength to listen to about 35 seconds of Hillary Clinton this weekend on Sunday morning CBS.

Listen.

I believe he knows he's an illegitimate illegitimate president.

He knows.

He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did.

And I take responsibility for those parts of it that I should.

But Jane, it was like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.

And so I know that he knows that this wasn't on the level.

I don't know that we'll ever know everything that happened, but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day, and history will probably sort it all out.

So, of course, he's obsessed with me, and

I believe that it's a guilty conscience, in so much as he has a conscience.

He doesn't think of you, Hillary.

He doesn't.

When he obsesses over the election, it's not about Hillary Clinton, it's about the corruption of the Democrats and the way they played.

He's not,

he, Hillary, you are the worst candidate in my lifetime and maybe in several Beck generations.

I mean,

my shoe could have beaten you.

There's no mystery here.

Yeah, that's why you lost.

That's why she lost.

She's horrible.

She was horrible.

Further than I've heard her go, though, she's saying the election was not legitimate.

Remember the big complaint before the election was that Donald Trump was going to say it wasn't legitimate?

Yes.

Do you remember this?

Yes.

Do you remember how the press spent weeks talking about what a scary thing it was that one of a major presidential candidates would say, dare say, that if they lost, the other side

cheated?

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah.

This is what she's saying.

She's saying, we don't know how, but we think he cheated.

That's not how you accuse someone of a major crime.

Well, it was the deal of the media.

They're claiming that the birth certificate stuff claimed that he was an illegitimate president.

Well, yeah, that's exactly what it was.

And you had a problem with it.

And that's why we didn't report on it.

I mean, we did our homework on it, and we found it to be a valid birth certificate.

But those people who kept going with the

non-valid birth certificate, look, it could have been changed.

I bet it was CIA that changed it.

Good God.

They're doing the same thing.

This is just their birth certificate thing.

But

here's the problem.

With the birth certificate, the president

could have solved that.

Right away.

He could have released that thing right away.

But it helped Obama.

It helped him him because it made anybody who was opposed to him, they could throw him into birther categories where I wasn't a birther, you weren't a birther, but we were birthers.

Right.

It was a handy way to demean his enemies.

Correct.

Okay, so that's why they kept that thing going for as long as they did.

Now,

what are they doing here?

With the birth certificate, it was Obama's prerogative to release that certificate whenever he wanted.

Okay, he held it back.

This

is not only a false claim, this is what they did.

This is what they did.

Oh, he was involved in Russia.

Let me give you some new information now on the Ukraine scandal with the with the DNC.

We are doing a special with Blaze TV, and the episodes begin tonight.

Tonight, we're talking to you about what you need to know, what your questions are, because I want to make sure that on Thursday this special hits everything that it needs to hit.

On Tuesday, we're going into

Biden and Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Biden and China.

Then on Thursday, we'll do a special behind the scenes at 5 o'clock.

And then Thursday night at 8.30 Central Time, 9.30 Eastern, we are going to do a special, Ukraine, the Democrats, Russia.

Now, why are we calling it the Democrats Russia?

When John Solomon was doing his research on the

Russian

collusion story, what, about a year and a half ago,

He had gone over to the Ukraine because some of the information was coming from the Ukraine.

And

so when he's looking at it, he was asking for the Ukrainians to help.

Did it come from you?

Where was it?

Were the Democrats involved?

So he was satisfied that Donald Trump was not involved with Russia and that he had not colluded with Russia to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The last thing that this source in Ukraine said to John Solomon was when John said, okay, so there's really nothing to see here.

The guy looked at him and said, shook his head and said, you don't get it.

Ukraine

is the Democrats, Russia.

Everything that they said Donald Trump was doing, they were doing in Russia.

And the evidence is a little overwhelming at this point.

Imagine what could happen and the evidence you could get if you're looking for it.

Let me give you a couple of things.

First,

Chris Murphy

from Connecticut, he's a Democrat from Connecticut.

He called or went over to Zelensky and he wanted to make sure that

the new Ukrainian president knew exactly what the deal was.

Now, he spoke to him in, I believe, August.

I don't have the date in front of me.

While choosing his words carefully, this is from John Solomon.

Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for U.S.

aid, but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to a request by President Trump to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including Joe Biden.

What is that?

Can somebody help me on that?

What is that?

Did he not just threaten aid?

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that the U.S.

aid was his country's most important asset, and it would be viewed as election meddling and disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukrainian relations to bend to the wishes of Donald Trump.

Quote, I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics.

I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the president's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the president would gravely damage U.S.-Ukrainian relationship.

There are a few things Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for the Ukraine is one of them.

So here's his message:

Investigate the Ukraine dealings with Joe Biden and his son, and you're not going to get any aid.

Now,

that's current.

So they just did exactly what they accused the president of doing.

But the president was looking for something else.

So you have to understand, he is not obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

She's a loser and he knows it.

And he doesn't spend any time thinking about people he thinks are losers.

What he is thinking about is, and she did it for a reason, he's an illegitimate president.

She knows that will bother him at night.

It will bother him in everything he does.

That will stick to him, and he will make mistakes because he will be so preoccupied with, they're saying I'm an illegitimate president.

I'm not an illegitimate president.

So they're trying, she specifically chose those words

because she's trying to get underneath his skin, and it will work

now

I want to give you a couple of other things

of what Donald Trump is actually looking for he's not obsessed with Clinton

he's obsessed with the DNC's investigation into the Russia thing

He's obsessed with that because it didn't happen.

And And

how did this happen?

He believes he was set up.

Now, I'm going to give you some clear-cut evidence that that is true.

This on top of the Biden thing, the Biden thing is what everybody's concentrating on.

That's not what you should focus on.

And I'll give you some of that evidence.

As early as January 2016, the Obama White House unexpectedly invited Ukraine's top prosecutors to Washington to discuss fighting corruption in the economy.

The meeting, promised as training, turned out to be more of a pretext for the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine's prosecutors to drop an investigation

into the Burisma Holdings gas company that employed Hunter Biden and to look for new evidence in a then-dormant criminal case against eventual Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a GOP lobbyist.

So this is 2016.

The Obama administration brings the prosecutors over and says, hey, we got to train.

We got to work together.

And oh, by the way, you guys got to stop on that thing.

U.S.

officials, quoting, kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united.

Now, this is not like a whistleblower that's saying this, who has secondhand knowledge.

This is the former political officer in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington who organized and attended the meetings.

Nazar Kolodensky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption officer, also

on the record, said soon after he returned from the Washington meeting, he saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S.

election.

The two top Ukrainian officials that released secret evidence to the American media smearing Paul Manafort.

That's what they were asking for in 2016, the Obama White House, here in the United States, in Washington.

When they got back, two officials smeared Manafort and released information.

Now, what's interesting about this is Manafort had a partner.

Manafort had somebody else doing exactly the same thing, except on the Democratic side.

And that name is Tony Podesta.

And if you remember, the day Manafort was arrested, Tony Podesta closed his business, a very successful Washington lobbyist group.

He closed it and retired.

Now, why do you think?

And why hasn't Tony Podesta been asked about anything?

Why hasn't there been any records released from Ukraine on Tony Podesta?

The release of the evidence forced Manafort to step down as Trump's top campaign advisor.

Now, so you know, this just isn't two sources that are saying this.

A Ukrainian court concluded last December that the release of the evidence amounted to an unlawful intervention in the U.S.

election by the Kyiv government.

You have that?

This is more than a whistleblower.

This is the courts in the Ukraine saying that two members of the government were engaged in unlawful intervention in the U.S.

election.

Who was that benefiting?

That was benefiting Hillary Clinton.

Who asked them to do it?

It was the Obama administration.

Shortly after the Ukrainian prosecutors returned from their Washington meeting, a new round of democratic pressure was then exerted on Ukraine, this time via the embassy in Washington.

Valerity Chali, I don't know how to pronounce the first name, he's the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, confirmed in a statement issued by his office that in March 2016, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee pressed his embassy to try to find any Russian dirt on Trump and Manafort that might reside in Ukraine's intelligence files.

The DNC contractor also asked the ambassador's team to try to persuade Ukraine's president, Petro Proshenko, to make a statement disparaging Manafort when the Ukrainian leader visited the United States during the 2016 election.

The ambassador said his embassy rebuffed both requests because it recognized they were improper efforts to get a foreign government to try to influence the election against Trump and for Hillary Clinton.

It's easy to see everything that the Democrats accused Donald Trump of doing with Russia, they themselves were doing in Ukraine.

This is without a government investigation.

This is just good reporting.

Nellie Orr, the wife of senior U.S.

Justice Department official Bruce Orr, who we know played a role, worked in 2016 as a contractor for Fusion GPS, the same Hillary Clinton-funded opposition firm that hired Christopher Steele, the British spy who wrote the now-debunked dossier linking Trump to Russia.

Okay, so Nellie Orr

was the one who was giving the fusion GPS stuff

into

the federal government through her husband, and that got to the Justice Department, the FBI.

They started an investigation, then they leaked it to the press, blah, blah, blah.

She has now testified to Congress that some of the dirt she found on Trump during her 2016 election opposition research came from a Ukrainian parliamentary member.

She also said she eventually took the information to the FBI through her husband, another way Ukraine got inserted into the election.

So, pressure, opposition research, all part of the Democrats' playbook on Ukraine long before Trump ever called Zelensky this summer.

And as I pointed out in the article here with John Solomon, Chris Murphy from Connecticut is still using that political pressure to influence elections in the United States through Ukraine.

This is much,

much bigger than Joe Biden.

That is a big part,

but honestly, a minor role on why you should care.

This is the Democratic National Committee using another intelligence service to influence our elections.

More on this, the special this Thursday, blazetv.com slash Glenn.

Sign up now.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

Michael Rechtenwald

is somebody I met, I don't know, about six months ago,

and I didn't know what to think of the guy.

He's somebody who was teaching at NYU.

He had been at the center of

deconstruction, I think, and

teaching and helping further the ideas of socialism or communism.

But they were all in theory.

And when he started seeing people actually do it, he's like, oh, no, wait, this leads to massive death.

Don't do it.

And he's really had his eyes opened to the left and now is speaking out in a strong voice.

Welcome to the program, Michael Rechtenwald.

Hi, Glenn.

Thanks for having me.

Good morning.

Hey, I want to congratulations on your book.

It's called Google Arpelago, The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom.

I want to start there, Michael.

What do you mean by the simulation of freedom?

Well, you know how the Internet gives us the sense that we can go anywhere, do anything, learn anything, and have unlimited roaming capacities.

You know,

That's been the promise of the Internet

since its inception.

Well, it's a simulated freedom that is, is not really freedom because we're being trammeled, we're being controlled.

Our searches are being

basically diverted by Google and other entities, but especially Google for searches.

So in effect, we don't have the unlimited freedom that we think.

We're actually being

controlled to a great extent by virtue of the algorithms that Google has instituted if everybody if you're by a computer right now go to google.com

and just type in in your search box just the letter a

Stu you doing it what comes up first Amazon Amazon do you know why Amazon is coming up first you would think because well everybody's searching for Amazon what are you searching for amazon for how about just going to amazon.com why go to google.com to find amazon.com, right?

Why is it coming up first?

Because it's their biggest financial partner is Amazon.

And so whether you're being manipulated because of financial reasons that you don't understand or for political or social reasons, you are being manipulated.

Indeed.

So, Michael,

you talk about new knowledge.

And

before we get into that with capital letters, there is new knowledge going around, and it is, you know, that there is no difference, you know, that men can have babies.

That's new knowledge.

Show how we're being manipulated on that.

Well, I mean, if you type, for example, you just talked about a Google search.

If you type in men can, just type in men can,

you'll see

the amazing results that you'll get.

What

What Google is attempting to do in their worldview is really all demonstrated almost instantly by virtue of this search.

Show me what it says.

It says, this has been exposed.

You don't have it?

Do you have it?

Men can.

Let's see.

Turst says men can have periods, is the number one?

Okay.

Men can have babies.

Men can have babies now.

Men can think about nothing.

Men can get pregnant.

Okay.

now go search for

women can't be there, by the way.

What's up?

Yeah, you have to have a space.

Now, search for women can.

So

Michael, tell me the significance of what he just found with men can.

Well, I mean, if this so one of the things that Google is about is that they are trying to break down what I call social ontologies, and that is, you know, the basic structure or infrastructure of our social order.

You know, men and women, for example, are the basic constituents of a family, as, you know, for a reproductive family.

Well, they don't want the family to exist.

One of the major arguments of this book is that Google is a leftist authoritarian outfit.

And they are trying to abolish the family, and that is one of the main constituents that stands between corporate state power and the individual.

That's quite a statement.

That's a real statement to make that they're trying to abolish the family.

Why would they want to do that?

Because it suits their interests.

Their interests are to have

no mitigating force between them and the state or the corporate state,

as it were, because they are really state actors, as I've shown in the book.

All right, now search for women can.

Do you have that still?

Yes, women can gives you...

Women can do it.

Women can vote.

Women can do anything.

Women can fly, which, if true, I'm going to the airlines right away and trying to oppose that.

And then women can be drafted is the last one.

But the first four are very positive.

Women can fly.

What person is searching for women can fly?

Right.

Nobody's searching for that.

Now,

you talk, and this is something also that our podcast just from over the weekend with Robert Epstein, he was saying that it's not necessarily the search results, it's the drop down box that makes a huge impact before the search results even get there.

Can you explain that?

Yeah, it's the algorithms are actually determining what pre-search results that you're going to get.

In other words, they're leading you into certain results by virtue of suggesting, filling in the blanks of what you are searching for and giving you the answer for what you're searching for before you even complete the search.

And this has a great deal.

People often just drop down on the box instead of completing their search by typing.

They prefer to let the algorithm fill it in for them.

The algorithm fills it in and diverts them into the channel that Google would have you go in.

But if you're not searching for women can fly, is the concept that they're just showing you all positives about women?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes, they have this thing called

algorithmic unfairness.

Okay,

now

that's their definition of what they mean by algorithmic unfairness is unfairness in the world.

They're not talking about their algorithms being unfair.

They're saying that there is an unfairness built into the r reality and that they attempt purposely

to change that unfairness by virtue of altering the results that they give you

for your searches to reflect the way the world should should be rather than the way it actually is.

But, Michael,

yeah, because

your conclusion, new knowledge or does the real exist,

nothing in the men's drop-down box, men can have periods, men can have babies, you know,

those aren't true.

That's not

true.

They're not true, but they want them to be true.

They want these things to be true because they are trying to disestablish our stable social ontologies.

They are attempting to eradicate

any barriers that stand between corporate state power and the individual.

Family is the main one.

I mean, Karl Marx in 1848

with Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, one of the ten points in the platform was abolish the family.

This goes back hundreds of years now.

And there is no question that Google has interest in the abolition of the social ontologies that lead to the family.

Because of the policies inside the company that make it very apparent

and there are algorithmic biases

that are facing outward to the public that make it very apparent.

You talk about new knowledge, and we've talked about new knowledge being women can fly and men can have periods, but new knowledge is capitalized, capital N, capital K.

What is new knowledge?

There's a company called NewKnowledge.com

that builds themselves as a disinformation agent, as the leading disinformation agent on the web.

Now,

as we've seen with the affair that's going on in terms of the Ukraine issue, anytime

they're saying one thing, it's really the opposite.

New knowledge claimed to be the main source for uncovering the Russian bots that were colluding to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election.

Well,

after they submitted their report to the Senate Intelligence Committee,

they then went on in the 2017 election

to simulate Russian bots themselves to support the candidacy of Roy Moore in order to make it look like the Russians were behind his candidacy.

So they create reality.

Then they spread this news, quote-unquote news, to the news outlets saying that this was happening.

They were producing the reality that they were report having reporters report on.

This is what's going on.

This is what new knowledge is.

It's the creation of a simulated reality.

And then they're reporting on it by news outlets.

This is unbelievable, Michael.

I was at a friend's house on Saturday, and

I walk in and they said, Alexa, living room lights.

And I said, dear God, don't tell me, no, you don't have Alexa all throughout everything in your life.

Yeah,

we love it.

I said, do you have Nest too?

Yeah,

we love it.

And I said, uh-huh, that's great.

And I tried to talk to him about, you got to stop that.

Don't, don't feed that any more information.

Can you explain to the person who says, but I love this, I don't have anything to hide?

As he said, Glenn, if they're coming for me, they're out of everybody else.

Right.

So what do you have a couple things to say about that?

First of all, Alexa has been shown to be a biased virtual assistant.

It is collecting information that leads you to certain conclusions that they want you to draw.

So the information is already tilted.

Alexa is based on tilted algorithms, just like Google search engine is.

Secondly, Alexa is recording your conversations.

And with the development of HARPA,

the Health Advanced Research Project Agency, which is an analog of DARPA, is to be an analog of DARPA,

this data will be collected, collated, and sent to a central database in order to be interpreted to decide upon certain things about your life.

For example, whether you can own a gun.

And it's not just Alexa, it's Google Home, it's the Google Watch, and it's your television if it's a certain brand, and I won't mention it.

No, mention it.

Go ahead and mention it.

It's Samsung.

Samsung televisions have been shown to be recording

conversations.

So,

and soon it could be a refrigerator.

If the Internet of Things becomes what they, what is it's vaunted to be,

that is, any appliance in your home, any appliance, I'm talking a washing machine, I'm talking hairdryers, everything.

Hair dryer, a microwave, I'm looking around my apartment here,

a refrigerator.

Blender.

Television, radio, anything that plugs in and has a chip.

Right.

Anything that could be chipified.

Then we'll be in this new Internet of Things, which is IoT, as they call it, the smartification of everything.

This smartification of everything is basically

the circumvention of your, what it is, it's the surrounding of yourself with intelligent machinery, which is in effect, a way to fence yourself in.

to

to be surveilled upon,

to have all the data in your home recorded and sent to central agencies, to have it collated, et cetera, et cetera.

It's a very, very scary proposition.

So mostly...

In the book, I say, I'm sorry.

No, go ahead.

In the book.

In the book, in Google Archipelago, I say that soon everything that's happening outside of the home will be recorded and tracked and traced, and much of what goes on inside of the home as well.

Thanks to this internet of things, the smartification of everything.

Google Archipelago is the name of the book with Michael Rechtenwell.

More in just a second.

Let me just say this.

A lot of Germans said at first, no, it's just like the Boy Scouts.

It's just like the Boy Scouts.

The Hitler Youth, yes, it's about Hitler and stuff, but they do a lot of good things.

And my kids get out and they get fresh air and everything else.

Well, eventually, those kids were taught to report on their parents.

You don't need the kids to do it.

Now your Blender will do it.

Your TV.

Google is doing it.

Nest is doing it.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.