Latest / Man in America Podcast / PROOF: 92% of Elections Globally are Controlled by ONE Evil Corporation w/ Dr. Robert Epstein

Transcript

PROOF: 92% of Elections Globally are Controlled by ONE Evil Corporation w/ Dr. Robert Epstein · Man in America Podcast

• 0:00
  Seth Holehouse: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to man in America. I'm your host, Seth whole house. As we look ahead to the election in November, I think that all Americans, I would hope, regardless of which side of the political aisle you're on, would hope that we're gonna have free and fair elections. It is a foundational aspect of our country. It's, you know, as a constitutional republic that we have to be able to cast a vote, and that vote must be counted.
• 0:24
  And so a lot of people have focused a lot on election integrity on issues such as ballot harvesting or chain of custody. But what if there's something that's much, much larger? What if there's something that actually can control our elections and not just our elections, but even the minds of the people over at over 90% of the world's people. What if that was the case? Well, according to my guest today, doctor Robert Epstein, his research, and we have some incredible information to share with you today, shows that that's exactly what is happening, that there are a few select companies that can literally choose which candidates get into power.
• 1:04
  And I'm not talking about political companies either. So folks, this is gonna be an important election an important, I guess, discussion, but an important discussion with this guest. I hope that those of you that are watching, regardless of which side of the political aisle that you're on, can watch this with an open eyes with open eyes and an open heart because this is an absolutely important and critical discussion because it doesn't just shape our elections. This is what shapes the future of humankind. And, again, my guest today, doctor Robert Epstein, what he's exposing here in real time when we're looking at it shows that there are some very, very powerful people and organizations that have far more control than we ever could have imagined.
• 1:46
  So folks, enjoy the interview. Doctor. Epstein, it is such an honor to have you on the show. Thank you so much for joining us today.
• 1:54
  Todd Callender: It's my pleasure.
• 1:56
  Seth Holehouse: So I first came across your work probably maybe even three, four, five years ago when I had seen your documentary, which I believe is called the creepy line. Is that right? That's the name of the name of it.
• 2:09
  Todd Callender: And the creepy line and you can you can watch it at creepyline..0rg. Creepy line 0 r g.
• 2:16
  Seth Holehouse: Okay. And it was mind blowing. It was I guess maybe I'll let you just explain it. Explain that the the basis of it in your work, and then then I'll just kinda take it from there because you're gonna do a better job than I am.
• 2:31
  Todd Callender: Well, the documentary was made by Peter Schweitzer, who's very well known journalist and author, has written some best selling books. He's also become a good friend over the years. But he, he's the one who created this film, and it's not just just about me and my work. It's it's about the threat that big tech companies, especially Google, pose to, democracy. It talks about the surveillance problem, the censorship problem, and then it talks a lot about my work, which is on, how these companies manipulate opinions and votes.
• 3:10
  And I recommend it highly. Again, it's a creepy line dot o r g because they just did a fabulous job without my help, by the way, of explaining my research. And then they made lots of beautiful visuals to explain my research, and I have trouble explaining my research. So this film is really great in that respect.
• 3:33
  Seth Holehouse: And I think that now that we're entering into the election season again, and we we just passed the primaries, which, of course, everyone's talking about, election integrity is obviously very important. You know, we live in in a country where we are hopefully you're casting our votes, and those votes are being counted the right way, etcetera. And there's a lot of movements that are focused on election integrity, a lot of bipartisan movements that are focused on that, which is really good because I it's really a civil rights issue to be able to cast a vote in this country and have it count. But what you've done and with your work, it paints a picture that I find far exceeds, far outweighs. I mean, even if we had perfect elections where every single ballot was hand cast and hand counted, the work that you've done uncovers something I think is a that is a far greater threat, which is the role that big tech, especially Google specifically, but they also the other big tech, the way that they can interfere with elections.
• 4:35
  And so I want you to introduce some of the different concepts that you first have put out in the the that was out in the creepy line, and help people understand just the power that even Google has, even with the Google search search and search suggestion that they have to alter the course of an election.
• 4:57
  Todd Callender: Yes. This is very, very important for people to understand. And I'm I've actually have relationships now with with people in from different organizations, left and right, who are interested in election integrity. And this is an important issue, and people are going about, trying to understand this this issue and make sure that we have election integrity, make sure we have free and fair elections. They're going about it in in different ways.
• 5:28
  My conservative friends have their concerns. My liberal friends have their concerns. I could go through the list, but then I won't be able to talk about my own work. So I won't do that. But point is election integrity, very important issue.
• 5:44
  Now it's true that that the people I know who look at election integrity tend not to look at the big tech companies. That's a big mistake. That's a big mistake. They've they've gotta start looking at the big tech companies because it turns out, and this is what my eleven plus years of of very rigorous controlled research shows. It turns out that these companies, Google above all, have the ability to shift millions of votes without people knowing and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.
• 6:27
  Now that's that's very different than shifting a few hundred votes or a few thousand votes here and there, because of ballot harvesting or ballot stuffing or, you know, whatever the terms are. This is happening on a much, much larger scale. Moreover, a lot of those issues that people have been looking at, the Dems, they tend to look at gerrymandering, for example, as a way of of kind of controlling the outcome of elections. Whatever these issues are, what's happening with the tech companies, it's like it's it's almost as if the earth has shifted under your feet, but you just didn't notice. In other words, it's it's so big and and and so widespread and so impactful that it just becomes almost just part of the air we breathe.
• 7:29
  And people just don't pay any attention. Even where they might suspect something, even where they think something could be happening, they just don't pay attention. So what what I've been doing are two different kinds of things now for a long time. One is in controlled experiments, which we publish in peer reviewed journals, which is very hard to do, by the way. I have to emphasize that.
• 7:55
  To say you publish in peer reviewed journals and we publish in some of the top journals in the world is really, really difficult. Your work has to go through incredible scrutiny. Most the vast majority of papers that are submitted to peer reviewed journals are rejected and never see the light of day. So we actually run these experiments, and then we present them at scientific meetings. We publish in peer reviewed journals.
• 8:22
  So what are what are the experiments show? The experiments show the power that these tech companies have to shift opinions and votes. So they don't show that companies are using these techniques, they show the power. So the very first one we discovered, which we call SEME, s e m e, which stands for search engine manipulation effect, that was back in 2013. Basically, people are assigned at random without knowing to three different groups.
• 8:54
  In one group, they're gonna see search results that favor candidate a. And then the other group, those search results will favor candidate b. And the third regroup group, which is a control group, the they don't favor either candidate. The research results are all mixed. So that means we're ordering search results so that if you click near the top and you're in the candidate a group, you're gonna end up going to a web page which makes candidate a look really good or candidate b look really bad or both.
• 9:28
  Now it turns out people trust high ranking search results. That's that's a long story that has to do with the fact that when we we use the search engines, most of the things we we query are for just our simple facts. What's the capital of Ohio? And those always turn up at the top so that we learn over and over again. We're like rats in a spinner box.
• 9:53
  We learn what's at the top is best. What's at the top is truest. Then the day comes where we look up something that, where we're trying to make up our minds, where we're not sure. So we might just type in something like Trump or Ramaswamy. We might type in something that's kind of open ended and where there is no definite answer.
• 10:25
  And the question is, what is the search engine showing you? And what I'm telling you is whatever it's showing you at the top, that's what people trust and that's where people click. Now if they're undecided, I thought maybe that meant that we could shift their thinking by controlling the ordering of search results. Okay. Twenty thirteen, I'm predicting that by controlling those search results, we could get shifts in voting preferences of two or 3%.
• 10:56
  That was my prediction. So two or 3%. Hold that thought. In that first experiment we ran, with representative voters, by the way, all of whom were undecided on the election we were using, we got a shift of 43%, which I thought was an error. So we repeated it with another group of representative voters, and we got a shift of 66%.
• 11:26
  At which point, I started to think, hey. Maybe maybe there's something going on here. Maybe maybe search engine companies have the power to shift votes. We also learned in those early experiments that people can't see the bias in search results. I mean, think about it.
• 11:47
  The search results themselves don't say much. They take you to a webpage. But by the time you go to a webpage, you don't remember what the search results were. So, people can't see if there's bias, even extreme bias in search results. So, now we're talking about a technique of influence, of manipulation that's new, that's made possible by the internet, that's made possible by the invention of search engines, and that people just are unaware of.
• 12:22
  They're unaware when this happens, when those shifts occur, they're unaware that they're being influenced. That makes them very, very dangerous. Also, search results are ephemeral. That's what they call them inside of Google. They're ephemeral.
• 12:38
  They appear. They affect you. They disappear. They're stored nowhere. There's no paper trail.
• 12:49
  Now think about that. Now you have a technique of manipulation which can produce enormous shifts in people's thinking and voting preferences without their awareness and without leaving a paper trail. Think about that. Think about the power. So 2018, there was a leak of emails from Google to the Wall Street Journal in which Google employees were were discussing how can we use, this is their term, ephemeral experiences to change people's views about Trump's travel ban.
• 13:27
  Well, my gosh, when I saw that, my head was spinning because I had been studying exactly that issue, how to use ephemeral content, ephemeral experiences to shift people's thinking and behavior and voting preferences. I've been studying that since 2013. Here in 2018, I'm getting a glimpse inside the company and realizing they know all about this. In fact, they know a lot more than I do about how to do this. So that's how it all began.
• 14:00
  It began with that discovery. And it didn't stop there because what we've done since then is discovered about a dozen similar techniques. They all have acronyms, SSE, search suggestion effect, TME, targeted messaging effect, etcetera, etcetera. There are about a dozen of them. And we have been doing controlled experiments, quantifying their power, showing exactly how each technique affects people.
• 14:32
  And we've gotten to the point in recent years where we're actually seeing what happens if we use the same technique over and over again on somebody. Do the numbers go up? And it turns out they do. Well, that's important because a company like Google could be hitting people with the same kind of technique, the same kind of bias for weeks or months before an election, hitting them over and over again with similarly biased content. And our experiments show, okay, the more times you do it, the more people you shift.
• 15:08
  So you get the general idea. That's one part of what we do. And that allows us to say very precisely if a technique is being used, how many votes it will shift. And now comes the second part of what we do. 2015, I get a call from Jim Hood, who at that time was attorney general of Mississippi.
• 15:31
  And in Mississippi, attorneys general are elected. He had sued Google on behalf of Mississippi, for manipulating people's thinking and behavior. Google in turn had sued him back personally and sued him personally. I mean, they're very, very aggressive and they're very hard to fight in the courts. Anyway, he was quite concerned.
• 16:03
  He was up for reelection. He wondered, could Google have an effect on the election? And I said yes, and I explained how. He was very concerned. And then he said, but how would you know?
• 16:17
  If these techniques don't leave a paper trail, how would you know? And then he said that, you know, in in law enforcement, he said what we would do is set up bots, and we would have the bots, you know, look up a lot of things on Google, and we'd see if if there'd be for finding some bias. So I said, well, that won't work because Google's algorithm can recognize bots because the bots have no history. You know, you have a history. You have a long, long history and a huge profile on Google, but a bot doesn't.
• 16:51
  So the bot would not get representative accurate information. It would not you wouldn't see the manipulation that way. So, well, then what do we do? And I thought, well, gee, you know, you'd have to you'd actually have to look over the shoulders of real voters. He said, well, how are we going to do that?
• 17:10
  I go, I have no idea. That was 2015. Early '20 '16, we started the first ever program in the world to do to Google and other companies what they do to us and our kids 24 a day, and that is surveillance. We set up the first system to surveil them, to monitor them. We literally recruited registered voters.
• 17:40
  This is 2016. We managed to get 95 voters in 24 states. We developed special software, installed it on their computers with their permission. And that software allowed us to look over their shoulders, capture content on their screens, capture a femoral content, which normally disappears. We capture it.
• 18:03
  That gets transmitted to our computers, and we analyze it. So in other words, we're doing what the Nielsen company does with television viewing. They've been doing it since 1950. They look over the shoulders of television viewers with their permission, and that tells them who's watching what show. Well, we're looking over the shoulders of real voters seeing the real content that Google is sending.
• 18:30
  And you have to use real voters because they personalize all the content they send to people. It's the only way you're going to know what they're doing. What did we find? Did we find any bias? Oh, yeah.
• 18:43
  We found pro Hillary Clinton bias, and I was her supporter at the time, pro Hillary Clinton bias in all 10 search positions on the first page of Google search results, but not on Bing or Yahoo search engines. It was Google. And since Google is the only search engine that counts, since they control 92% of search worldwide, Bing and Yahoo, hardly anyone uses them. It's Google that matters. And we were able to calculate that if that level of bias had been present nationwide, that would have shifted between two point six and ten point two million votes to Hillary Clinton.
• 19:31
  Now I'm gonna skip ahead really fast. We built a larger monitoring system in 2018, a much larger system in 2020, showing that Google had shifted at least 6,000,000 votes to Joe Biden.
• 19:49
  Seth Holehouse: Hey, folks. I've got a quick message for you. So I'm sure you've heard a lot of people, myself talking about the importance of buying precious metals, gold and silver. But what's really behind that? Is it just a thing of, hey.
• 20:02
  Buy this gold. Buy this silver. Right? Or is there something deeper that we should be looking at? So I recently came across some figures about house prices.
• 20:09
  So in 1930, the average family home was approximately $4,000. Fast forward to 02/2023, the average family home is just over $400,000. So you have to ask yourself, why is that? Is it because things have just gotten more expensive? No.
• 20:25
  It's actually because the dollar has lost 99% of its value since 1930. Right? When people talk about the collapse of the dollar or inflation, this is what it means. Now let's take a look at gold. So in 1930, if you wanted to purchase your home in gold, it would take approximately 200 gold coins.
• 20:44
  So 200 gold coins would purchase the average family home in 1930, about $4,000. Now if you instead of buying a home with that gold or cash, you set those aside. If you set aside $4,000 in cash in 1930, it would be worth $4,000 today. What can you buy with $4,000? Can you buy a family home?
• 21:04
  No. You can't even buy a crappy used car. But if you set aside $4,000 worth of gold coins in 1930, which is 200 gold coins, 1 ounce coins, that would be worth approximately $400,000 today. And this is the key lesson about precious metals. It's not about getting rich.
• 21:25
  It's about putting your money into an asset that protects you against inflation and against the destruction of the currency, which is what happens to all fiat currencies, especially now. We're in the end days of the dollar. And so that's why it's important, maybe not all of your money, but a portion of your money, a portion of what you have, I highly recommend putting it into precious metals of gold and silver, because what it's doing is it's protecting you. This is an asset that has stood the test of time, not just stood the test of time since the nineteen thirties. We're talking about the rise and fall of civilizations.
• 22:00
  Gold was used to buy houses back in ancient Rome. It's still around. It's an asset that will forever have its value. So folks, if you want to do this and you need someone you can trust, there's no person I can recommend more than doctor Kirk Elliott. He's a very good friend of mine.
• 22:15
  He's a strong Christian patriot, and he's out to really help people to protect their savings and what you've worked for against the destruction of the dollar, not to mention also protecting it against the dangers of a central bank digital currencies. So to learn more about this, go to goldwithseth.com or call (720) 605-3900. Again, that's goldwithseth.com or (720) 605-3900. Both those places will allow you to set up a quick appointment where you can talk to a wealth adviser that will help get you started on this path. Again, goldwithseth.com, 7 2 0 6 0 5 3 9 0 zero.
• 22:56
  Todd Callender: We built a much, much larger system in 2022, showing among other things that if Google had not interfered in that election, the GOP would have ended up with a majority in the senate of between two and eight seats. What actually happened was the Democrats ended up with a majority of two seats. But if you take Google out of it, which we now know how to do, the GOP would have the majority in the Senate. So on and on and on. Now, I just wanna bring us up to the present and then hit me with all your questions.
• 23:39
  By late twenty twenty two, at that point, we had 2,742 of people we call our field agents or our watchdogs in 10 swing states, which is where the action is. And we had preserved not just a few thousand ephemeral experiences, we had preserved more than 2,500,000 ephemeral experiences in the midterms. So in other words, we had learned how to do this. Right? And we had also learned how to analyze the data very, very quickly.
• 24:10
  So I said, okay. The time has come. We need to set up a permanent monitoring system in all 50 states with court admissible data. And that will force these companies to stay away from our elections, and by the way, to stay away from our children. So now we're talking about a much bigger project.
• 24:35
  I'm happy to report that as of November of twenty twenty three, so a year later, we had in place a large scale monitoring system capturing content on the computers of more than 13,000 registered voters in all 50 states, twenty four hours a day. And we built a dashboard where people could see a summary of the data that we're collecting in real time. In other words, as we're collecting it. So if your viewers go to americasdigitalshield.com, that's americaswith an s, digitalshield Com, they can actually see data coming into this system from registered voters in all 50 states. And what's more, they can see whether there's any political bias in that content.
• 25:41
  Seth Holehouse: So, and we'll touch on the childhood risk here, but I just want to scroll down here because this is massive. I mean, this is like what you said, Google controlling 92% of global search traffic. This is just elections that we're talking about here, candidates, political candidates, and how they can sway the opinion of a political candidate that much. It makes me wonder, we'll come back to the website because there's a lot to dig into there. But what I see here is a massive, not only a massive global surveillance state, but a massive global brainwashing operation where people because, you know, we're talking about political candidates.
• 26:32
  What if, you know, people are curious about whether they should get their booster or not? And they go there. Well, they're only going to get one particular narrative. Maybe people are curious about they want to learn, you know, like with medicine in general, they want to learn different ways of treating say a certain ailment. And there, you know, I see it, you only find one opinion, you don't find anything holistic, you're not going to find, you know, acupuncture as a potential way of curing or anything.
• 27:00
  It's really it's straight to the CDC and the big organizations. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, this is what you've exposed here is literally how this central centralized massive global corporation can control the thoughts and beliefs of almost the entire world? I mean, this is it sounds like something out of a sci fi movie.
• 27:29
  Todd Callender: Well, it is the entire world outside of Mainland China. It is the entire world. My wife and I lived for a year in the Fiji Islands. Ninety Two Percent of search done in the Fiji Islands was done on Google. So it is the entire world except Mainland China, which has its own methods of control.
• 27:50
  And Google has helped it develop some of those technologies, by the way. This is scary stuff. And the way you just worded it, I love the way you worded it because you made it sound very big and very scary. And you know what? It it really is very big and very scary.
• 28:05
  In fact, it's even bigger than you're saying because, again, I know more about this, unfortunately, than anyone in the world. And as big as you think it is, it's bigger. I'll tell you why. You if I may if I asked you how many how many ways does Google use to surveil us? Just give me a rough number.
• 28:27
  Because, obviously, there's Gmail and there's the Google search engine. So just give me a rough number.
• 28:37
  Seth Holehouse: Gosh, I mean, because I know single sign on is a big one. And there's a lot of stuff to do. Mean, I maybe I mean, there's also, you know, people have Google cameras, have Google smartphones, Google operating systems. Maybe it's a couple dozen kind of primary different ways that they
• 28:57
  Todd Callender: Okay, couple dozen. So you're actually going higher than most people I've asked this question to.
• 29:02
  Seth Holehouse: Unfortunately, I researched it a lot.
• 29:07
  Todd Callender: Yes. But the actual number is more than 200 different platforms, the vast majority of which people have never even heard of or just don't think about because they're completely invisible. For example, millions of websites use Google Analytics because it's free, free, free. Everything is free. They use Google Analytics to track traffic coming into their websites.
• 29:34
  Well, if you read Google's privacy policy in terms of service, you'll find that according to Google, if you are using any kind of Google software at all, they have a right to track you. So Google is actually tracking every single thing people do on all of those millions of websites, which don't seem to be associated with Google, but which have embedded in them Google Analytics. Now this is this is so crazy because when you begin to look at how at Google's reach, you know I I mentioned Google Analytics, but a lot of major universities, build all of their systems on top of Google software. So the entire University of California system, UCLA, UC Berkeley, prestigious schools, They're using it doesn't say Gmail, but they're using Gmail. All of their emails from all of their students and all their professors and all their staff and all the attachments is all shared with Google.
• 30:45
  It's not just universities. It's high schools. It's middle schools. It's elementary schools because Google provides all of their software to educational institutions free I keep putting free in quotes because it's not free. We pay with our freedom.
• 31:03
  We pay with our freedom. It's not just educational institutions. The New York Times runs through Google. Various US government agencies run through Google. The Economist runs through Google.
• 31:20
  The Guardian, which has done really spectacular investigative reporting about Google and how dangerous that company is, it all runs through Google. So, their reporters, they're communicating with their anonymous sources, they're not anonymous to Google. When they're getting in documents as part of some investigation, all of that is being shared with Google. Now I've talked to one of their top reporters about this problem, and she it it infuriates her. But she says there's nothing I can do about it.
• 32:02
  So as big as you think any of these problems are and remember, there's the surveillance. Second is the censorship. Okay. You don't know what they don't show. So that what they're actually suppressing are not just the the cases that end up you know, we end up, moaning about and complaining about.
• 32:27
  What they're actually not showing, it's astronomical. It's astronomical. They're only gonna show things that either make them money or that suit them ideologically. You mentioned suppressing content about the coronavirus, for example. Well, any topic under the sun that they care about, they're controlling the content.
• 32:55
  One of the leaks from Google, which you can get to through my website, by the way, is a two minute video of the CEO of YouTube talking to her staff. And she's talking about how they're revising the YouTube algorithm to push up content that they think is valid and to push down content that they think is not. And behind her on a huge screen are two yellow air arrows, one going up and the other going down. So there's there's just no mistaking what she's talking about. And then the third area is manipulation.
• 33:29
  Again, we've discovered about a dozen techniques that are being used every single day by Google and, to a lesser extent, other companies. People are unaware of these techniques, they're especially unaware of the impact that Google is having on our elections and on our kids, our children.
• 33:52
  Seth Holehouse: I mean, it's just astounding. It's absolutely astounding. And I think about too for for children. Know that we'll be looking at this on America's digital shield website. But if if a if a kid is, say 12 years old, and they're struggling, they're getting picked on in school, and they go to Google and they say how to deal with bullies.
• 34:12
  Well, maybe one of the third article they find is something that says, are you you know, do you feel insecure about yourself? Well, yeah, you know, find a 12 year old that doesn't feel insecure. And maybe it takes them to some transgender, you know, thing where all sudden, a month later, they've gone down that path. And now they're coming to their parents saying, you know, mom, I think I'm the wrong gender. And, and it's just, it's just this.
• 34:32
  I mean, if it was, you know, Google, funny enough, their their tagline used to be, I think it was don't be evil, but they actually they no longer use that tagline, which is very odd. But it's it's kind of it's something that it seems that the technology is really it's good or evil based upon who's using the intent of the of the user or the controller. And so I wanna then I wanna bring up the website now, America's Digital Shield, and and look at this because this is, you know, one of the other kind of questions that arises in this overall discussion is, like, what's what is Google actually showing? And this is a question that I think is we should all be asking. I mean, how biased is Google?
• 35:17
  How are they just really slightly, you know, kind of, you know, say liberal in the in their their perspective or the the ideologies they're pushing? Or is it that they're, you know, really, really, like, almost like Antifa level far left? I mean, so walk us through this website. So I've looked at this before, and I I think this is absolutely fascinating, but it's also as fascinating it is. It's like a hundred times more frightening, because this is what's shaping our society.
• 35:50
  Todd Callender: It frightens the heck out of me. I'll tell you that. If you well, first of all, that big number there, that's the number of ephemeral experiences that we have preserved since we got this system going. And bear in mind, that 72,000,000 number, almost 73,000,000 now, normally that's zero because ephemeral experiences by definition are never captured, never preserved. In fact, what you're looking at there is Google's worst nightmare because they've always counted on the fact that they can manipulate people using ephemeral content because no one could capture ephemeral content.
• 36:27
  We're not only capturing search results. We're capturing even the search suggestions that they flash at you really fast, but they're typing a search term. I mean, that's amazing. We've captured literally, I think it's over a hundred million of those. We're capturing, answer boxes on, on Facebook and other platforms.
• 36:56
  We're we're capturing reminders to vote or to register to vote. We're capturing YouTube images. We're also capturing content that's going to children now because through our adult field agents, we've gotten more than 2,600 children and teens to sign up. We're starting to monitor content coming in through their Yeah. These are pretty gory.
• 37:26
  Some of them are also quite sexually explicit too.
• 37:29
  Seth Holehouse: What is it that I'm seeing right here? What are these images?
• 37:33
  Todd Callender: Those are those are real images, going to the mobile devices of children and as young as five. And, you know, some of them are just kind of creepy, but some of them are they go way beyond creepy. I mean, they're they're horrifying. Some of them are oh, how about that one? There's one.
• 37:54
  Seth Holehouse: So these are videos that are like, because Google knows that a six year old is a child as they're scrolling through YouTube. So these are the the videos that they recommend.
• 38:05
  Todd Callender: I forgot to mention. These are recommended videos, And these coming from regular YouTube. These are coming from YouTube Kids. So, know, although it made me nervous to play some of this stuff when I testified before congress a few weeks ago, I said I also said, you know, you have to see this because parents just don't understand. They don't know what kind of content.
• 38:33
  There's a lot of beheadings. There's another one. We the this the the set you're seeing there, by the way, is about to be updated, I think, within the next couple of days, I think, by early next week. And the new set that's being posted is even worse than this set. So this is and this is not stuff we're looking for.
• 38:54
  This is content that is actually coming into the mobile devices of children as young as five. Now we don't even really understand this yet. This is a new area of study for us. But there has to be see the knife sticking out of the guy's head there?
• 39:11
  Seth Holehouse: Gosh.
• 39:11
  Todd Callender: There has to be a reason that they're doing this, or there might be many reasons. We don't really know yet. We'll figure it out. We will figure it out. And eventually, there'll be a whistleblower.
• 39:23
  Eventually, there'll be leaked documents. At the moment, we think that what they're doing, it's called negativity bias. We think that they're now and then showing kids really gruesome things because that draws attention. It draws a lot of attention, and it gets kids to go to come back to see what other crazy thing is gonna turn up at some point unpredictably. So we think it's a it's kind of an addiction mechanism at the moment, but we're just starting to to look at that.
• 39:54
  Goodness. Now that's that's just the kids issue. If you go down farther and start to look at the politics, what you're what you're seeing now are graphs. And I know some people hate graphs and can't read graphs, but see there's a horizontal line there where it says below Google. Well, below that are points.
• 40:15
  Each point represents a day, and that is showing the level of bias that we're seeing in content on Google search results. And if if the numbers are below the horizontal line, that means there's a liberal bias in the content. Notice there are no numbers above the line. That's strange. And then the big number you see in the upper right, that's the overall mean bias.
• 40:44
  Well, that means there's an overall liberal mean bias in Google search results. And we know from the experiments that that can shift millions of votes. It doesn't impact people who already have strong opinions. It impacts those people who are undecided, who are uncommitted, the people who vulnerable. And guess what?
• 41:06
  Google knows exactly who those people are. They can target those people because they were reading their emails. They're looking at their their searches online. They're looking at every single they're looking at every place they go. They're looking at the donations they make.
• 41:23
  So And those are the people that use
• 41:25
  Seth Holehouse: the determine elections too. Those are the people that decide the elections is is that that middle which
• 41:31
  Todd Callender: really elections.
• 41:32
  Seth Holehouse: Yeah.
• 41:33
  Todd Callender: Yes. In fact, what we can tell you for sure is that any any election with a projected win margin of 4% or less, and that's a lot of elections, Google has complete control over those. Complete, absolute 100% control over those elections. They can control elections with projected win margins as high as 16. Although that's harder for them to do.
• 41:58
  So if you have a projected win margin, you're running, you know, for governor of Arizona and you're a Republican and your projected win margin is 20%, you're safe. But who the heck has a who has that kind of safety? Now now now you're looking at YouTube bias. Now what that means is we're looking at the recommended videos that YouTube is recommending. There's that up next video that they play automatically, and then below that are a bunch of recommended videos.
• 42:31
  And if they're coming from news sources, we're showing you the political bias in those news sources. Notice they're pretty darn consistent in showing content that comes from liberally biased news sources. We can tell you, in fact, because we've been doing in-depth studies in some states, the one we just finished was for Ohio, that the recommended videos on YouTube in Ohio are are liberally biased at about twice the rate you would expect by chance. Now these recommendations are very critical because a lot of people just get hooked, and they watch the next one that's recommended and the next one and the next one. And and Google itself has admitted that 70% of the videos around the world that people watch on YouTube were recommended by their algorithm.
• 43:30
  70%. And our own new data with children, shows that 80% of the videos that children watch are recommended by Google's algorithm. So think of the power. You're you're boosting certain videos. It's exactly what the CEO of YouTube said.
• 43:52
  You're boosting videos that suit you, suit your company, your company's values, your company's profitability, and you're suppressing content that doesn't suit you. And you've got 70% of adults and 80 of children watching those recommended videos. It's unbelievable power. And until we set up this system, no one had ever ever been able to preserve those recommendations. Now we're preserving them.
• 44:31
  Seth Holehouse: My goodness. It's it's just it's it's just baffling. It makes me think it's like, gosh, if there was a really evil person that wanted to take over the world, he would seize control of big tech. And it's like, oh, maybe that's what's happened. Maybe that's why we are where we are.
• 44:50
  And so now this is really, really helpful. And I also, you know, for the people that are watching and listening, I encourage everyone to share this this content, share this video, share this podcast, however you're interacting with it, because we need to get more people to see us. It doesn't matter what the political affiliation is. We even if you're someone that has completely different views than I do, for instance, I bet we can both agree on the fact that we don't want to be manipulated without us knowing it. No human wants to be controlled against our free will like that.
• 45:21
  And so with what we've shown here, you're looking at the the live information. So can you walk us through what you showed happened in previous elections based upon what happened with the manipulation and without the manipulation? The website shows that. Is that right?
• 45:39
  Todd Callender: If you go down toward the bottom of that of the website, you'll actually see elections. We just give a sampling of some major elections that have been flipped in recent years. So the twenty twenty election, that's an obvious case. That was, that was flipped. But oh, stop stop there.
• 45:59
  Go go up to that blue map because that's kind of interesting. That's showing you right now the political bias that Google is sending to people in all 50 states. Idaho, it looks like they're getting some slightly conservative bias there. But the other 49 states, they're all getting liberally biased content. So it doesn't matter whether you're in a red state or a blue state or a purple state.
• 46:24
  Google is they're so arrogant that they're gonna send liberally biased content. They often send content that's more liberally biased to conservatives than to liberals.
• 46:37
  Seth Holehouse: Incredible. My goodness.
• 46:39
  Todd Callender: Alright. Now if we go down to some of the elections that were flipped, the twenty twenty presidential election, so there you're seeing actual outcomes. But if you go down below, you'll see what the outcomes would have been. Let's see how they're turning red? Would have been if Google had stayed out.
• 46:59
  And we now know how to calculate this very precisely. We even know how to to to indicate the the probability that the selection was flipped. So that's what our our newest stuff is. We're actually showing probabilities. We haven't put that online yet, but but we will.
• 47:16
  The point is that this is not just, you know, academic stuff, academic drivel, which, you know, a lot of academic stuff is drivel that's not really relevant to our lives. This is immediately relevant to our lives because we're talking about, one very big company and a couple of other companies that have gone berserk in a way. They've gone berserk. They've figured it out how much power they have, and they're exercising that power. And we know from leaks of videos, of emails, of documents that Google is interested in social engineering worldwide.
• 48:04
  One of the leaks is an eight minute video called The Selfish Ledger. If you look up The Selfish Ledger and look up my name, you might come to the transcript I made of this film. The selfish ledger is an eight minute video made by their advanced products division in which they're discussing the power they have to reengineer humanity. They call it resequencing human behavior according to, and I quote from the film, Google's values. According to Google's values.
• 48:43
  This is a company founded by utopians. It's hired a lot of utopians over the years. You know? Hey. I'm a big believer in utopia.
• 48:53
  Although I recently read Thomas More's original book called Utopia, which was published I think in the 1500s, I was kind of horrified by it. It didn't match what I think of as utopia. And that's the problem. That's the problem with utopias, you see, because utopians each have their own idea about what a utopia should look like. The point is that Google has a very strong utopian culture, and they are exercising the power they have to reengineer humanity.
• 49:25
  They're doing it right now. They're affecting the thinking and behavior of more than 5,000,000,000 people around the world. My team is the only research team in the world that has focused on discovering the methods that they're using, quantifying those methods, and now through monitoring, documenting, documenting the fact that they're actually using these methods. Now why aren't people just jumping on this? Why aren't they jumping?
• 49:57
  What what about congress? What about all the attorneys general around the country? I mean, why aren't people jump why where are all the lawsuits? Okay. In fact, I'll put it a different way.
• 50:09
  Where's the money? Why aren't we being showered with money to set up a larger and larger, system? Because the larger the system, the more data we get and the more credibility we have in our courts around the country. Where's all the support? And that's where I kind of get stuck.
• 50:34
  When I was on Joe Rogan's show, that's what he ended up focusing on because he kept saying, where is everybody? I don't get it. Because the work we do is extremely rigorous. As I say, we publish in peer reviewed journals. We're collecting data now on a massive scale.
• 50:54
  I should have mentioned earlier that our field agents, our watchdogs are politically balanced. If you go to the very bottom of America's digital shield, you'll see the balance. They're politically balanced. So we take every every possible precaution. Yeah.
• 51:11
  There's a there's a pie chart showing you
• 51:13
  Seth Holehouse: Actually, you've got slightly more liberals working on this than conservatives, which is
• 51:19
  Todd Callender: I hope it's not a a big difference.
• 51:21
  Seth Holehouse: I mean, 29% versus 26%. It just goes to say that this is a this is this has nothing to do with political affiliation. This is so much bigger than politics. I mean, this is it's it's really it's almost like, who's playing God? And who gave them permission to play God?
• 51:43
  And did we give them permission? Because that's what this is.
• 51:46
  Todd Callender: The problem, though, is, see, Google exercises its power, not just over the people, not just over the voters. It's exercising its power over our politicians, over our leaders. In fact, it's choosing a lot of our leaders. So I'll give you an example. I I I testified again before congress just in this a few weeks ago.
• 52:09
  My testimony, it's a six minute video. It's at, twenty twenty three epstein testimony dot com. The session was chaired by a Democrat, Amy Klobuchar. She was very nice to me, except after my testimony, she actually said on the record, she said on the record that that our monitoring system violates people's privacy because we're looking over their shoulders at their computer screens. Now she somehow missed the fact that that sentence of mine ended by with just as the Nielsen company looks over the shoulders of television viewers, she somehow missed that, our field agents, our watchdogs, our volunteers.
• 52:56
  They're all you could consider them patriots. They're they're helping to try to make the Internet safer and fairer. They're volunteers. We pay them a token fee, $25 a month. That's it.
• 53:11
  You know, for their trouble, which is a lot of trouble that they have to go through. And we and we transmit their data to our computers without any identifying information. In other words, we never look at the data of individuals. We do the exact opposite of what Google does. Somehow, she missed all that.
• 53:34
  Now why? What's going on here? What's going on here, actually was Ted Cruz explained it to me. He said, look. He said, Google gives a fortune in donations to the Democrats, and Google also sends them millions of votes.
• 53:51
  They put a lot of Democrats into office. They flip a lot of elections in one direction only. He said, so forget the Democrats. He was trying to explain why he's having trouble passing relevant legislation, okay, to stop these companies. He was trying to explain it to me.
• 54:07
  He said, forget the Democrats. He said, and then Republicans like me, we just generally speaking don't like regulation. Okay. That's a problem. See?
• 54:25
  Where is everybody? Where is everybody who should be up in arms over the work that we've done, the discoveries we've made over the past eleven plus years. Where is everybody? Well, they're just skulking around. I don't know.
• 54:46
  I don't get it. All I can say is we're not going to stop. We're going to keep building. We are always looking for major donors, major foundations. If any of your people, any of your viewers can help us there, that's great.
• 55:04
  We're also always looking for small donations. Right now, the main thing we need are for people to step up and make a tax deductible donation of $25 a month to sponsor just one of our field agents. Because even though we only pay them $25 a month, as soon as we hit 10,000, and we're way past 10,000, that costs $250,000 a month. Or just to pay our field agents. Forget what it costs to recruit them and train them and equip them.
• 55:36
  So we need people we're going to need tens of thousands of Americans year round to step up and just sponsor one of our field agents. If you go to feedthewatchdogs.com, feedthewatchdogs Com, you can very easily click and you can make a tax deductible donation to just I'm not asking you to feed 100 of them or 1,000 of them, just one, just one, just to help us compensate one of these wonderful people. And we're still building. So, we're past 13,000. We're gonna get much, much bigger.
• 56:18
  And of course, the bigger we get, the more expensive the system is. But this system, if you think about it, is not optional. This must exist because if we are not monitoring, well, among other things, in 2024, Google alone will be able to shift in the presidential election between six point four and twenty five point five million votes. In other words, Google will decide who the next president's gonna be. If we have a large scale monitoring system in place with court admissible data in all 50 states right now, we have a large scale system in place in all 50 states, but we have court admissible data in just 15 states so far.
• 57:06
  One five, 15 states. So we need to get much bigger. If this system gets big enough, these companies will back down. They will stop. And we know that because in 2020, November fifth, '20 '20, right after the election, Ted Cruz and two other senators sent a very threatening letter to the CEO of Google talking about our findings, my research findings in the twenty twenty election.
• 57:37
  And that very day, Google stopped some of its most powerful election manipulations in Georgia, which was gearing up to have a a senate runoff election there for two senatorial positions. They stopped. They the the bias in their search results went to zero, which is the first time we've ever seen that. And more importantly, they stopped sending out partisan go vote reminders. That's one of their most powerful manipulations is sending out register to vote reminders, mail in your ballot reminders, and go vote reminders mainly or exclusively to members of one party.
• 58:19
  Think about how powerful that is. And without a monitoring system in place, they can get away with it. No one will ever know that they did it.
• 58:32
  Seth Holehouse: Well, that's encouraging that these this behemoth of a company, these massive tech companies, they're not invincible. I think that's one of the key lessons here. And I think it's a lesson that we're really learning in ways that we haven't since the founding of this country is that the power still lies in the hands of We The People. And if you had if you had half a million people sponsoring Watchdogs and had that much data behind you, we would be able to take on even more so this this beast, this this giant tech global corporatocracy behemoth. And that's it's a good lesson.
• 59:16
  And so I really want to encourage everyone that's watching and listening a to share this information, share the website, share the information. It's this is a great discussion that bridges the political divide. Doesn't matter what you know, what where you're coming from, what your background is, we should all be able to agree on this. But the other is I really want to encourage people to go to the website you've got here, which I'll put in the description feed the watchdogs.com and sign up just to support somebody. What if somebody wants to sign up to become a watchdog?
• 59:48
  What if they want to get involved and do this? How does that work?
• 59:52
  Todd Callender: I am so glad you asked that question. Because every single day we have people writing to us, wanting to volunteer to be watchdogs. And we would love to take on those people because first of all, it would cut our costs down just dramatically, and we can't take them. Why? Because if we took volunteers, Google Google would send us thousands of volunteers.
• 1:00:18
  They have sent us people.
• 1:00:20
  Seth Holehouse: I
• 1:00:20
  Todd Callender: see. Sometimes they've been sloppy, and we've actually been able to determine that those people came from Google, and then we we kick them out. But the point is Google would send us thousands of people. They wouldn't send us necessarily their own employ employees. They they employ on the outside that we know of more than 16,000 so called consultants, and they would just send us their consultants.
• 1:00:44
  We would have no way of knowing, generally speaking, that those people were sent by Google. And we would get bad data because Google would control the data being sent to those people. So, unfortunately, we have to reach out to literally a hundred registered voters before one person says, okay, sure, I'll do that. And then we have to get them to sign an NDA, and then they have to put software on their computers and etcetera. It's a long process.
• 1:01:17
  It's expensive. It's a long process, but there's no substitute for this process. We have to reach out to real voters. We have to equip their systems so that we're getting real data. And we have to protect their identities as well just as the Nielsen company has to protect the identities of the Nielsen families, to monitor television watching.
• 1:01:40
  We have to do the same thing. So, look, the point is we've been developing these monitoring systems since 2016. We've figured it out. We have figured it out. We were so clumsy in the beginning.
• 1:01:55
  Now, we're a lean machine. We're operating very efficiently, but this system is inherently very expensive. So, you know, you're right. If we had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans who let's say they normally give money to the Red Cross each year. If they had on their list to support, our digital shield, that would stop these companies.
• 1:02:25
  And by the way, I would say, although, you know, nothing's absolutely guaranteed in life, I would say the likelihood that these companies would back off would be extremely high. They could not risk having massive amounts of data collected in a rigorous and balanced way being introduced into the courts or being introduced to Congress or to AGs. They couldn't survive that. And people would start to pass meaningful laws and regulations if that kind of data were being made available. And those regulations, we would have a way of determining whether or not the companies are complying with those regulations.
• 1:03:11
  See, that's why, again, monitoring is so important. I've become more and more convinced this is simply not optional. Given that technology keeps advancing so fast, now AI is turning up all over the place, it becomes more and more important that we track what they're doing. Just as they track what we're doing, We have to track what they're doing. If we don't track it, think about it, we won't know anything about how they're messing with our kids' minds.
• 1:03:44
  We won't know anything about how they're messing our with our elections, about which elections they've flipped. In 2020, Donald Trump, whom I did not support, but Donald Trump won five out of the 13 swing states. That's 2020. Our data show without any doubt that if Google had stayed out of that election, Trump would have won 11 of the 13 swing states. He easily won would have won the presidency in the electoral college.
• 1:04:14
  That's how big a difference Google is making. These are not these are not small effects. These are not small numbers. This is as as the president used to say, huge. This is a huge, huge I can't I can't do it the way he does it.
• 1:04:31
  But I'm telling you, that's what we're talking about. This is this is big stuff.
• 1:04:37
  Seth Holehouse: Well, thank you so much for committing so much of your personal resources and time and effort and energy into this. It it's it's incredibly important work. And again, I will reiterate, I hope that every person watching this can share this video, share the podcast. And for those of you that have the means, even if it means canceling two of your streaming subscriptions, canceling your Disney plus, which you should have canceled a while ago, supporting a watchdog, and I'll put the links below. So Doctor.
• 1:05:06
  Epstein, thank you again for coming on. It's been such an honor and a pleasure to have you on the show today. And I really hope that more people can get behind the work that you're doing because it's incredibly important.
• 1:05:17
  Todd Callender: Thank you. It's a pleasure, and thank you for just for for being so so sympathetic and so concerned. That means a lot to me.
• 1:05:25
  Seth Holehouse: Of course. Of course. Alright, folks. I hope you enjoyed that interview. I've now got a really important and actually pretty brief discussion with Kirk Elliott about some very significant news have happened this past week as it relates to banks and the manipulation of the prices of precious metals.
• 1:05:42
  So enjoy this interview. Kirk, it's good to have you on as usual. How are you doing?
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 3: I am doing awesome. It's great to see you.
• 1:05:51
  Seth Holehouse: Thank you. Thank you. So we were chatting a little bit before we started recording, and you've obviously, okay. We've both been talking about precious metals for quite some time. That is your it's your life, but there's been a something very significant that just has happened as it relates to precious metals and an indicator that is tied to the manipulation of precious metal prices, which is something we've talked about.
• 1:06:17
  So what's going on?
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 3: So first, let's talk about the manipulation because I hear this all the time. It's like, Kirk, when is manipulation gonna end? Why do they keep manipulating silver? Why do they hate it so much? Right?
• 1:06:28
  Well, they don't hate silver, they being the big banks. So to put it into perspective, to kind of explain the backdrop of this story, a few years ago, BlackRock bought the silver ETF, SLV, from State Street. And when State Street had it, it was HSBC was the custodian of the physical silver that was basically backing up those ETF shares. So when BlackRock bought them, they dumped HSBC and said, we want JP Morgan Chase. So interesting side note, JP Morgan Chase, the year before, had got hit with a $900,000,000 fine for lying about number of ounces that they have under custodianship.
• 1:07:18
  It's like, what in the world? Why would they want to hire the crooks? Right? It's like, why? Well, I think BlackRock's dirty too, right?
• 1:07:28
  They control the world, right? So you can't have somebody that's clean and complete marriage partnership with you. They'd be unequally yoked, so to speak. So they had somebody that just as dirty JP Morgan Chase, right? And got caught with their hands in the cookie jar lying about the number of ounces.
• 1:07:45
  So that's what they have. Now, why does JP Morgan is the largest shorter of silver on the planet? So here's the reason why. So let's say you're a business person and you're manufacturing something. Do you want your cost of goods, the things that you need to build a product?
• 1:08:04
  Do you want them low or to be high? Well, you want them low, right? So it all impacts your revenue and your profits. So what do they do? Let's say BlackRock issues them an order that says, hey, we need 10,000,000 ounces of silver today.
• 1:08:21
  We sold all these shares. So what does Chase do? They issue naked short contracts. They don't have to own the physical metal on a naked short. They can just I mean, it's illegal for us to do that.
• 1:08:33
  But a big bank, they have the ability to sell something that they don't own. It's like, what in what world does that make sense? Well, does when you're a big bank. So they issue naked shorts. That drives the price down because it's selling pressure.
• 1:08:46
  Then when the price gets down, they buy all this physical silver. And then all that demand for physical silver causes the price to go up. Then they do it again. Say, okay, we're going to issue more short contracts. Boom, price goes down.
• 1:08:59
  They buy more physical silver. Demand causes the price to go up. This is the vicious cycle of manipulation that we've seen for decades. Right? Okay.
• 1:09:08
  So the basis behind manipulation is short contracts. So we've had this going on since the beginning of time. I can't remember, and I've been in this industry for twenty nine years, I can't remember a time when big banks or hedge funds have not been shorting silver or gold. And you go back to the price points in the year February, silver was $4.5 an ounce. In 2020, silver was $11.91 And maybe a year and a half ago, fifteen months ago, silver was $17.97 Today, as we record this, it's $22.5 So, dollars 4.5 to 22.5 Well, it's like 500% increase.
• 1:09:57
  It's insane, right? It's a lot. That's over the last twenty years. Last three and a half years, eleven ninety one to $22.50. That's roughly close to 100% gain, averaging over 30% a year.
• 1:10:11
  Nobody's going to squawk or complain about those kinds of returns. Realize that's with manipulation in the markets, which acts kind of like an anchor. What would it be without manipulation? Through the roof. Right?
• 1:10:25
  Which is why you see some economists like, oh, Bixweer, Bo Pony, different people saying or or even usdebtclock.org says with the current money supply, silver should be over $1,100 an ounce. And they're saying silver should be in the thousands of dollars an ounce, not 25 where it is today, right? It's actually under that. Well, people, they have algorithms that actually give them those numbers. Here's where this could make sense.
• 1:10:54
  In a world without manipulation, silver is just a function of supply and demand and market forces, right? There's nothing else holding it down. So if we run out and Sony, Samsung, LG, Tesla are needing to buy it and there's not very much available at COMEX depositories, well, they'll offer any price necessary so they can actually finish up the production of their whatever they're building, a TV, an electric car, whatever, right? So this is the backdrop of where we are. Well, what happened last week?
• 1:11:27
  Last week, the number of net short positions in silver by banks decreased by 50% in seven days. Fifty, right? So all of the short positions in silver all over the world, half that have taken decades to accumulate, they got rid of half of them
• 1:11:46
  Seth Holehouse: in one week. So basically, if I'm to simplify this, a short position is me saying, hey, Kirk, I'll bet you $10 that apples are gonna be worth less money in a month from now than they are right now. That's kind of like a short position. You're you're betting on the value dropping. So all these banks that have, as you've mentioned, spent decades accumulating all these short positions on silver, which is part of what keeps the price of silver suppressed is all these short positions.
• 1:12:19
  You're saying that over the course of the past week that they've that half of those short positions have been pulled out. So would that mean that these banks are looking at silver thinking something's gonna happen and the price of silver is gonna go up and my short position will then become a losing position? Is that
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 3: It's exactly what I think is gonna happen because if you have a short position and you have to cover those and silver goes up, let's say dollars per ounce, you just lost money hand over fist. It's not a dollar for dollar move that you lose. Short contracts are leveraged. So it's like multiplied losses. So if you have people unloading, unwinding their short positions, why?
• 1:13:10
  Because they think that the price is going to go up. That's the only reason you would unwind your short positions. And to do it in that kind of mass, 50% of all net short positions globally are gone in one week, that tells me that the big banks think that silver is going to go through the roof because they have to unwind these or else they lose money hand over fist. Multiplied losses, not just dollar for dollar losses, multiplied losses, and they can't afford that. Now, I'm not a technical trader.
• 1:13:44
  I'm a fundamental investor, right? So difference between fundamentals and technicals are this. Fundamentals are what cause a market to go up or down. So for example, what causes stocks and bonds to go up or down? Well, if you have raising taxes, raising interest rates, people don't spend money.
• 1:14:05
  They don't have enough money to spend. You have inflation, so people can't afford. Those are the fundamental forces that would cause people not to buy. When people don't buy things, profits come down, revenues come down and stock prices come down. Right?
• 1:14:19
  So you have the opposite like you had during the Trump and Reagan years, lowering taxes, lowering interest rates, job creation, inflation was held in check. People had a lot of money to spend and therefore the stock market boomed. Right? So these are the fundamental forces that cause something to move. It's usually legislative action of some sort.
• 1:14:39
  Okay? Same thing with gold and silver. What causes gold and silver to move? Unsustainable debt, inflationary pressures, political conflict, geopolitical conflict. Everything that we're seeing is a propellant to move gold and silver up.
• 1:14:55
  So you look at that and say, fundamentally, it's there. So technical traders are people that just look at charts. They look at entry points and exit points. And they're usually like day traders. It's like every single penny counts, right?
• 1:15:10
  Because they're going to be in and out of a position really, really quick. So then I'm not a technical guy because I've never really known one that's actually done well. It's always the fundamental forces that drive everything. That's why I look at that. But I was talking to a technical trader friend of mine yesterday.
• 1:15:30
  And on the price of silver, there's this, I would call it like a harmonic convergence of price, which is a bunch of fancy algorithms, right? But it says when silver approached 22, there was this harmonic price point that said, this is actually probably the best time over the last numerous years to buy silver. Because you go up and down, up and down, up and down, and then you go down and it tests like this support level. If it goes through that, you're probably going to sink a little bit further. But what does it do at that support level?
• 1:16:07
  So if it starts going up, it's going to probably act like a trampoline and go through the roof. It's exactly what it did. So yesterday, it's kind of like the landscaper guy always has the worst lawn in the neighborhood because he never has time to actually deal with it, right? Because he's always dealing with somebody else's. That's how I felt yesterday.
• 1:16:29
  We were so busy. I saw this harmonic price point. It's like, man, silver's like close to 22. I've got to buy a bunch of silver. I ran out of time.
• 1:16:38
  Didn't do it. So then today I look, oh man, silver's up like 39¢. So it hit that, bounced up like a trampoline. Is it still a good value? Of course, I'm going to buy some today.
• 1:16:51
  It's just 39¢ more than what it was yesterday when I wanted to do it, right? But here's where it hit that support line, started bouncing up. See, these are what the technical traders look at. So you've got fundamental, technical, all coming together at the same time. Wrap that around with this big bow on this present, which is short positions were cut by 50%, meaning whatever the big banks are looking at, whatever they're looking at, they see that silver is going to go through the roof.
• 1:17:25
  No other explanation, Seth, as why they would want to unwind 50% of their short positions. Because if they have these short positions and the price keeps going down, they make money hand over fist. But they're not keeping them. They don't think that the price of silver is going to keep going down. They think it's going to march forward.
• 1:17:46
  This is exciting to me when I see these kind of things and this convergence of technical, fundamental, black swan events, things that were not foreseen, which is banks getting rid of 50% of their short positions, it's like, this is like an opportune time. If you've been sitting on the sideline riding this fence, it's like, I would allocate now. I would truly just get in now because but don't be like me if I was too busy yesterday to do it, and I had to pay $0.39 more per ounce. This is one of those times where it's like, this is a great time. And whether you wait in silvers a dollar more, almost immaterial to me, because I think this is one of those times where I think it's going to go up rapidly because the manipulation game is 50% less than it was a week ago.
• 1:18:37
  Right? I think that that manipulation is going away. And markets can then just move with normal market forces, supply and demand when it's needed, when it's not, what the perception is, why is it safe? Right. People are looking at all that stuff in a world where they realize my bank isn't safe.
• 1:18:53
  The stock market's overvalued. We've got political conflict. We've got wars going on. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen.
• 1:19:03
  And so, boy, this is exciting to me, Seth, because everything that we've been talking about for close to a year now, it's like, all right, the stage is set. This is this is really positive news. The most positive news I've ever, ever seen for silver. And I've been doing this since, well, before 02/2002, I started. So it's been a long time.
• 1:19:27
  Seth Holehouse: And it's interesting because we've talked about following you know, seeing what the big banks, the big families through the, you know, the private exchanges, you know, through COMEX, etcetera, what they're doing. And we've seen these trends of more and more big banks, more and more central banks, more and more sovereign banks are stocking up. They're they're buying huge amounts of precious metals, specifically gold, which, you know, silver and gold are very tied together. And so we've been following that, and and that's what it's really been is it's, you know, don't do what Jim Kramer tells you to do. Do what the Rothschilds are doing.
• 1:19:58
  Right? Do what the Vatican's doing. Do what BlackRock is doing. Right? Do what the the Federal Reserve what these these big institutions are doing that they don't tell you about on typical mainstream media.
• 1:20:10
  And so when I see this, it's it's interesting, and that does feel really positive. It's like, yeah. Again, if I you know, if back to the original analogy, if you and I've got this, you know, look at the price of apples, and apples are $5 an apple, and I'm I'm saying, look, I've I've got a I've got all this money betting that the price of apples is gonna keep dropping and dropping or stay close to that and, you know, whatever, then I'll keep that money there. I'll keep making money. But if if I have this idea, this feeling, or this insight information that that there's gonna be a drought next year, and apple prices because the drought are gonna triple and go from $5 to $15, I'm gonna pull all my shorts on that apple because I'm not gonna lose all my I'm not gonna lose my shirt on that apple.
• 1:20:53
  So, yeah, it's really the only thing that makes sense is that I believe that the, you these the markets, the prices of these things, none of this is just happen chance. It's all controlled. It's manipulated. They know they know when the stock market crash is coming. They know when the prices are gonna go up in in precious metals.
• 1:21:08
  They know they're gonna come down. So this is a big indicator. So if if somebody wants to allocate in the precious metals, specifically silver at this time as we've talked about, so we've we've got a link set up GoldwithSeth.com takes you right here. Now this is actually you've simplified this landing page. This is great.
• 1:21:26
  So they they go here, and what do they do?
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 3: They just fill out their information. It's like, what's your name? What's your phone number? Best time to reach you? Then there's a note field.
• 1:21:35
  It's like, what was it that Kirk and Seth talked about that caused you to want to reach out? What do you want to protect? So then that will come into our office. One of my client concierge team will call you to set up an appointment with one of our consultants where we'll dig in deep to hear your concerns, hear your fears, hear your dreams, and then strategically map out a plan for success moving forward where you can take advantage of these trends in precious metals or let them take advantage of you. We don't want that.
• 1:22:05
  We want to help. So you can do it that way, or you can simply call us at (720) 605-3900 and just say Seth sent you. Either one, whatever you prefer, call or the email form. It all comes to the same place. And then we just set you down with one of our specialists that will Our goal is to minimize your risk, maximize your return, hear your fears, and adapt to those things.
• 1:22:36
  Start melting them away by putting together a strategy for success moving forward. That's what we've done for decades. And God's just blessed our company. We're we're doing really, really well because we focus on your needs.
• 1:22:49
  Seth Holehouse: Fantastic. Well, Kirk, thank you for the good news. Thank you for being here today, and I'll catch up with you again next week.
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 3: It's my pleasure.
• 1:22:57
  Seth Holehouse: Folks, as you know, my friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of your life. And he didn't start just by simply creating the best pillow. He created the Giza Dream bedsheets. They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep for me, which is crucial for my busy schedule. Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
• 1:23:17
  It's ultra soft and breathable, but extremely durable. So Mike's Giza bedsheets sheets come with a sixty day money back guarantee and a ten year warranty. Giza dream sheets come in a variety of sizes and colors. Mike's latest incredible deal is the sale of the year. So folks, for a limited time, you'll receive 50% off the Giza dream sheets.
• 1:23:38
  You'll receive a set for as low as $29.98. So go to mypillow.com and click on the radio podcast square and use promo code man. That's m a n, as in man in America. There, you'll find not only this amazing offer, but also deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including including the MyPillow two point o mattress topper, MyPillow kitchen towel sets, and now even flannel sheets, and so much more. So call 809858966.
• 1:24:06
  Again, it's 809858966. Use the promo code man. Go to mypillow.com. Make sure you use promo code man.