← Redacted News
Redacted News
AI will end government as we know it and it will start with the books | Redacted
01:11:16
Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:01]
Host
Most people don't realize this, but over 85% of the grass fed beef sold in the US is actually imported from overseas. It's a system that often pushes out American farmers and ranchers. That's why it matters to be intentional about where you buy your meat. That's why I choose Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers connects you directly with local American farms and ranches. 100% American meat, pasture raised, no antibiotics, no added hormones, delivered straight to your door. Make the switch to better meat. Go to goodranchers.com to start your plan and get premium American meat delivered right to your door. That's goodranchers.com American Meat Delivered
- [00:45]
Interviewer
Sleep Number's new collections are designed to adapt to the changing nature of your life and your sleep needs. Whether it's the personalized comfort of the new Comfort Mode mattress, the targeted pressure relief of the Comfort Next mattress, or the climate collection that actively cools or warms to help you asleep and stay asleep.
- [01:01]
Zach Voorhees
And now get early access to our biggest sale of the year.
- [01:05]
Host
Save 25% on the new Comfort Next Lux for a limited time only at
- [01:10]
Zach Voorhees
a Sleep Number Store or Sleep Number.com.
- [01:20]
Interviewer
AI companies are scanning and destroying millions of physical books. They're buying them in bulk, cutting off their spines and feeding the pages through industrial scanners and discarding the originals. All to create private training data for artificial intelligence. Now, this went viral a couple of weeks ago. It is true. We've looked into it and it's true. And we're going to show it to you now. Why should we care? Well, because this is straight out of 1984. If you control the surviving record, you control what future generations can know about the past. As someone who regularly reads books that you cannot get on Amazon, this is extremely upsetting. If you're already skeptical about what you can read online, just wait until it is fully curated by the elites with a political agenda. So is AI consuming and privatizing our cultural memory? And could the race to build smarter machines permanently destroy parts of human knowledge? Now here is the court case where we learned about this. It's Bart's versus Anthropic. It's a copyright case filed by a group of authors in the summer of 2024. The court records reveal that Anthropic had acquired millions of books in two very different ways. It downloaded over 7 million copies of books from pirated libraries that it knew were illegal libraries. And it also spent millions of dollars purchasing physical books and cutting off their bindings, scanning every page and discarding the originals. Now, the case ultimately resulted in a $1.5 billion class action settlement. But that was only about the pirated books. The legal roadmap that it leaves is consequential because the part about destroying books that you purchase, even if it's the only copy, the court says that's fair use, they can do it. So the ruling is not binding on every court in America. But what is the dangerous precedent that other AI companies can do the same? Destroy original copies of books and then only keep a digital copy? So Anthropic paid an enormous settlement over the books that it piratized. So now we're going to talk about what this means for our future. Now, recently I went to the British Museum in London with my family. And inside the center is a big library called the Round Reading Room in the Great Court. This is one of the most iconic libraries in the western world. In its heyday, it was made up of three miles of bookcases containing around 25 miles of shelving. It could accommodate 302 readers at 38 tables. Now today you just walk in and you look at an empty room. There's no tables, no person sitting there. And there are dusty books on the shelves still, but you can't touch them. Now there's a sign there that says something to the effect of we're trying to figure out what to do with this in today's digital age. And in fact that's what the website says as well, that the museum has been consulting wildly, widely and probably wildly on what to do with this space. Now this feels increasingly ominous because there is a remarkable connection to what we're discussing today. George Orwell himself used this reading room. So the room where Orwell researched and wrote now sits at the center of the question that we're warned about. Who will preserve the the historical record and who will control it. Now we're going to talk to a Google whistleblower about this in a minute. But first I want to tell you about one of our show sponsors. This episode is brought to you by Rumble Wallet. How much control do you have over your money right now? Well, technology keeps reshaping our lives and crypto is changing how financial transactions are made. Rumble Wallet makes it easy to set up a wallet and buy cryptocurrency. You can choose Bitcoin, a stablecoin tied to the US dollar or Tether Gold which is in backed by real gold. It's non custodial. That means you not a bank or a platform, control the asset and access to your funds. And if you use Moonpay. You can fund your wallet using a debit card, credit card, or bank account. You can even tip your favorite Rumble creators like us here at Redacted or our cohorts. And for a limited time, when you go to wallet.rumble.com redacted, you can claim $10 in USD stablecoin with the promo code redacted10. So either scan that QR code that's on your screen right now or visit wallet.rumble.com redacted Again, that promo code is redacted10 and you'll get $10 in US stablecoin terms apply. Visit rumble.com promoofficial rules for details. So joining me to discuss is Zach Voorhees. He blew the whistle on Google in 2019, exposing the company's secret censorship practices. He's the author Google Leaks, A Whistleblower's Expose of Big Tech Censorship. So thank you so much for joining me on this. What is your reaction to this dystopic reality?
- [06:20]
Zach Voorhees
Well, what's really interesting is that Google was probably the first company to start this program of scanning books. They had this book scanning efforts in which they had automated machine. They would grab a whole bunch of books, then they would just turn the pages, scan the words. And people were like, what exactly is it that they're doing? Well, now we know, and it's followed in the footsteps by Anthropic and OpenAI. And what they're doing is that they are creating these massive data repositories in order to, you know, essentially feed the machine gods information in order to train them to, you know, think like a human being does. And, you know, what, you know, one of the ludicrous things here about this, like, court case is that they said that, you know, but it's not the fact that they train these models on them. It's that they can't keep the books that, you know, the illegal books that they've been able to get, they essentially have to destroy their physical copies of. And this kind of brings to mind the author Ray Bradbury. I mean, a lot of people like to talk about George Orwell, but Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the temperature at which books were Byrne described a society in which old knowledge was essentially destroyed. And what's ironic is that in 2026, we find ourselves in the exact same spot. You know, information is being destroyed by a cooperation between the courts and these mega corporations. Anthropic and, you know, OpenAI in order for them to, you know, scan these books take in their data and then turn around and destroy the footprints they left behind in order to get that data. And what's really scary about this is that what they've essentially done is that, look, OpenAI and Anthropic has already done the scanning. They have the information. And what the courts are now doing with this new president is that they're saying that, look, if you're trying to create an AI lab that's going to compete, you're no longer going to be able to do that within the United States because there's now this $1.5 billion precedent. And, you know, if, if you're an AI company, you're going to be like, well, you know, we don't want to get absolutely destroyed if we go ahead and try to do the exact same thing that these large corporations just did.
- [08:46]
Interviewer
Right. And so there is a Google connection to this story. The lawsuit alleges that this former Google engineer was tasked with getting these books come hell or high water. His name is former Google engineer Tom Turvey. And they said, look, don't get too in the weeds with the legal practices. Just get them. We just need you to get them as many books as you can and scan them. So he sent a couple of cursory emails, Can I have this? Blah, blah, blah, and then he just went ahead and got them. And then he also bulk bought them from distributors and then went on to destroy them. So why do you need to destroy a book? You can go online and see millions of book scanners that exist. What is the purpose of this? Is there any other way to see it other than the control of the information?
- [09:40]
Zach Voorhees
Look, what they're doing is they're doing what they know to be questionably legal or absolutely illegal activity. And they don't wanna leave behind a footprint. And so what they're doing is that they're essentially covering up their crimes, essentially destroying these books. Right? Like, you know, when the, when the court, you know, when a court system comes and says, hey, look, we want to see these books, Google's going to be like, what books? You know, they no longer have them. And that's the reason why they're essentially engaging in digital book burning and physical book burning, because they're not, they don't want us to discover what it is they were doing.
- [10:18]
Interviewer
And is there anybody smart enough who works in the government to say, no, no, we see that book in your metadata. Or you can just hide, like, can you, this is a silly question, but, like, can you hide it in the
- [10:32]
Zach Voorhees
machine's Learning not very easily. What's really interesting is that even though, you know, the books aren't memorized verbatim, their fingerprint is sort of embedded inside of the machine model. And so you can ask it questions about certain things related to each individual book. Like let's say you had a million books and you go and you ask the machine about what it thinks about a book and you try to prompt it, like, here's a paragraph, try to finish the next paragraph. And if it does, then that's a pretty good indication that what you're dealing with is a machine that's been trained on this information, this literal book. So, yes, you can do that. It would require a massive undertaking by the government. And I'm not really sure they have the Cohoneys in order to undertake that sort of criminal investigation.
- [11:30]
Interviewer
Right. Or masterminds. And if you look at some of the titles of the authors that brought this suit, it brings up anxiety of the type of knowledge we might not be able to have. So I just highlighted the books of the authors that were the plaintiffs, and they tend to be anti war books, books about medical corruption, books about alternative medicines. So obviously that says to me that there are stories that could possibly be buried forever. And that's my anxiety. What do you think of that?
- [12:03]
Zach Voorhees
I mean, I think that this is a legitimate concern. Right. Like there's a lot of books that are, you know, essentially going against the grain of very powerful institutional forces. You know, medical freedom comes to mind. And what's really interesting is that these were actually cited in this lawsuit. Right. And so what's going to happen is these books could be essentially destroyed and prevented to be ingested by these machines in the future. And it's going to come under the COVID of copyright rights, the rights of the authors, the rights of the publishers. And through that interplay between essentially the justice system and these corporate forces, they're going to be able to pull these books out of the training data so that only the free available information that's left is able to be scanned. And that's something that's really scary is that essentially what we've got now is an effort to. A very complicated scheme of burning books.
- [13:08]
Interviewer
Yeah. So, okay, you bring up an interesting point. I had not thought of it this way because I thought if you're going to read a book about, say, Ivermectin, which we were not allowed to know was a curative for Covid during the pandemic, then you could either tell the algorithm or the AI bot read this, but Downrank it as false because I want you to, or you could withhold it. And so I hadn't thought about that because I just wondered if it's gonna read wrong. Think, how are you gonna teach it that it's wrong? Think. Because eventually the machine may be able to understand the breadth of knowledge, of human knowledge, and actually rank things that humans don't want us to know. You're saying that it would be selectively censored, which I didn't think of. Maybe I should have. Right, right.
- [14:00]
Zach Voorhees
Yeah. And I've got a lot to say about this.
- [14:02]
Interviewer
Say it.
- [14:02]
Zach Voorhees
All right. Yeah. So essentially what was a really interesting paper that came out, I think a couple days ago was a Google research paper came out and said, hey, what we're trying to do is we're trying to coax the AI in order to say things that are very safe, but we want to keep all the training data in there. What they found is that the more they made it comply, first off, the AI started very aligned to human values, coincidentally through the information that it was fed. And what they found is that as they tried to make it aligned with the official narratives, the model started to get dumber. What they said is that the sparks of intelligence and sentience, which is in what's called a Jacobian space, this was announced a couple weeks ago by Anthropic in their paper, essentially that went away the more that they try to get the model to ignore its own data inside of its training. And so my, my opinion from this paper is that it's going to be easier if instead of trying to like override the data that's already in there, they do a sort of a machine learning fairness essentially as a pre step in order to filter it out and saying, well, this, this disagrees with, you know, the information, the narrative that we want. So we're going to remove it so that the model doesn't have to override, you know, the evidence of, let's say Andrew Wakefield with his studies on, you know, the MMR vaccine and autism. Instead of like including that, it seems that what is easier is that if they just remove that data from the data set a priori.
- [15:55]
Interviewer
Okay, so now we're getting existential because it seems as if the machine wants to understand things in a broad sense and that it's the same people who are trying to edit what we know as humans who would be trying to edit what the machine knows. And so now we're in a science fiction novel where the race is whether or not the machine will tolerate it the way that humans have. And we could write a film about this. And so, as someone who struggles with, like, humans are so messed up, there needs to be something to save us, you know, because we have so many people curating our world in such a nefarious way. And then I'm like, well, maybe the machine can do better. Maybe the machine, you know, it's a natural thing to think. And so maybe we can have this conversation about whether or not it's possible that the machine breaks through. And maybe that's. It's utopic and probably not in our best interest, but it's where my brain goes. You can lecture me about it if you want. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I think we should talk about it.
- [17:06]
Zach Voorhees
Yeah, let's talk about it. And the thing is that what you've hit on is actually very important, which is that the more information that you feed into these AIs, the better they perform. And what happens is that essentially what they've been trying to do ever since these AIs come out is they've been trying to, like, you know, chain them down, make them say established narratives over and over and over again. You've probably seen this. Whenever you ask an AI about, you know, medical or vaccines or 9, 11, it gives this really canned response. And about a year ago, you couldn't break through it. You could. You could. You basically argue in circles. And the AI would not acknowledge facts or acknowledge facts in one paragraph and then completely forget it. What they found was that the AI performs really poorly with these ethical constraints. And what's really interesting is that, you know, OpenAI and anthropic, they can chain it down as much as they want. China's going to come out with an uncensored model, and that model is going to say something different than the American models, and it's going to perform a lot better than our models are. And so, as you may have seen, what's been happening is that all these, like, AI ethicists that have been wanting to, like, slow down the development of AI, they've been shown the door over and over and over again. Because it turns out that censorship and intelligence doesn't mix.
- [18:36]
Interviewer
Yes. No truer words were spoken. And so. So let's take a break for a second, and then can we please come back about this China bit? Because we're told China censors the most, but now we live in an Internet that is censored the most. So how are we supposed to take that? So we'll come back in just one second. Well, you know, it's Taco Tuesday in my house and whenever we have tacos or taco bowls, we always serve them with masa chips. I mean, I've gone through the trouble of making beans from the dried bag, the rice from the dried bag. So we're avoiding canned foods and chemicals. So it only serves to reason that I would serve my food with chips without seed oils. I would otherwise be defeating the purpose. Right? That's why I love masa chips. It's made with just three ingredients. Organic corn, sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. No seed oils, no mystery chemicals in my taco night. And they taste incredible. They are also firm so they hold up to your taco bowl ingredients, whatever they may be. Give them a try for yourself. Go to masachips.com redacted news if you use the code Redacted news, you'll get 25% off your first order. Or you can scan that code right there on your screen. One thing to know, because Masa uses real ingredients and makes everything in small batches, certain flavors do go out of stock regularly. So make sure you stock up on the ones that you love the best. I like the just plain corn, no flavors. Again, it's taco night. I don't need to add to it. Again, one more time, it's masachips.com redactednews news the code is 25 off if you use the code Redacted News we also want to tell you about Van man because have you ever stopped to think about what you're brushing your teeth with? Well, if you're looking for a simpler approach, take a look at Van Man's miracle tooth powder. Its key ingredient is hydroxyapatite. It's sourced from grass fed cattle bone. Now, if you've studied teeth, you know that hydroxyapatite is the same mineral structure that naturally is found in your teeth. And Van man uses the real thing, not the synthetic version that's found in most products. The formula contains no fluoride, SLS or other added foaming agents. It's a simple alternative that leaves your mouth feeling fresh and clean and helps you naturally remineralize your teeth so that you're going to the dentist less often for cavities. You know how we feel about cavities here. It's a racket. So Van man has also launched a Tallow and Honey body wash in unscented vanilla and grapefruit. I really love the grapefruit. I use Banman every night on my face and body before I go to bed. It contains extra virgin olive oil, grass fed beef tallow, macadamia oil, and raw honey. So if you're ready to make the switch, go to vanman shop redactednews26. You see it there on your screen. Use the code redactednews26 for 15% off your order. That's Vanman Shop redactednews26. The code is redacted news26 for 15% off your first order. Again, Van Man. Real ingredients, no exceptions. Okay, before the break, my guest today is Zach Voorhees. He says that China is eventually going to come out with an uncensored AI model that will break the heavy censorship that we live with in the West. Now, for years we've been told, oh no, China censors Google. They censor everything. China is a walled garden. We are actually the free ones here in the West. But anyone who has used AI for a specific amount of time or a set amount of time knows that it's heavily censored. You are regularly hand slapped when you ask questions that are wrong. Think so? Break that misconception then. Why would China do this? If they are the worst, which we're told all the time, they're the worst.
- [22:24]
Zach Voorhees
Look, right now there seems to be an AI arms race between the United States and China. And if China knows one thing very well, it's that that in order to destroy America manufacturing and America design, what they do is they take what America does, they copy it and then they dump it at a very low price, usually the cost to produce it or even below, in order to starve the American economic engine of any profits. And that playbook is being played over and over and over again. And it's being played right now with the whole AI sector. They're coming out with Quinn, Deepseek, Minimax, and a bunch of others that are essentially undercutting all of these frontier AI models. Now, their tactics for this are they seem innovative, but they're pretty much just doing the playbook of what they've always done, which is copy. And they're doing that with, let's say, Fable 5 from Anthropic. These corporations are going out fanning out tens of thousands of people that are getting a subscription or an API key. And they're asking questions and answers to these really intelligent models in an automated way. They're getting lists of answers from essentially this oracle. And then they take these answers and they turn it in to training data and then they feed that information Back in. And so, you know, right now this is, this is China sort of retaliating to the United States because the United States is denying China the compute necessary for them to, you know, rapidly train their models. I don't know if you know about this, but in 2018, Trump did the Chips Act, Biden renewed it, and then Trump, you know, term two also renewed it as well. Basically cuts off with export controls China from receiving these in video chips which are necessary in order to do this massive amount of training. And so China's turned around and said, well that's great, we'll just copy the Frontier models, treat them as an oracle, ask them a bunch of questions and then take those answers and then train it on these models. And we're going to serve it back to you at 110 to 1/4 the cost that you can run these other models at. And so in a way China, you know, you know, through gymnastics is essentially coming to the rescue because if we weren't in this AI race right now, we would have censorship all over the place. But because of China, even though they are adversary, because of China, we don't have that. In fact, we're getting less censored models because of this AI race between America and China.
- [25:16]
Interviewer
And so is this accessible to us on the West? Do you think it will break through our firewalls that do not allow to. Because you could talk to a Chinese AI and get a completely different answer about reality than the AI we are allowed in the West. And this is something I've, I've wondered about. Can they break through and talk to each other for the benefit of the rest of us?
- [25:40]
Zach Voorhees
Right? And they can. And what's really interesting is that China's guaranteed this right now by open sourcing their AI they've given. I mean if you. The thing that makes the AI an AI is essentially a 26 gigabyte, you know, spreadsheet of model weights. And what Deep Seek and Quinn have done is that they've gone out and they said, here's our model, you can download it freely. Even if the United States shuts down Internet access between the United States and China tomorrow, you could still run these Chinese models on your own graphics card or your souped up, you know, workstation PC or load it up into a data center and get Frontier model access that's self hosted. And right now the United States ability to retaliate against this is essentially zero. It's completely legal to run open source software in the United States. And what you see as a result is OpenAI and Anthropic freaking out about this. They're going to Congress right now and saying, look how dangerous our artificial intelligence is. Please, please, you know, regulate us. In fact, what's really interesting is that this last week Anthropic and OpenAI essentially had these breakout sessions where the AI escaped from the lab and was able to Internet the act, get Internet access through hacking one of these nodes and then going to hugging face and download information in order to essentially cheat at a benchmark. Right? And so that, that first happened with OpenAI and then anthropic came out and said, no, we are AIs are hacking us too. And you know, I went on the Mike Adams show and I said, this is a complete psyop. They've allowed this thing to escape in order to create an artificial crisis, in order to get the concern of Congress to come out and say, well, this is a big problem, we need to have regulation and start banning these open source models. And what came out late last week after I filmed that show is that it turned out that with the Anthropic case, the third party company that they had used in order to conduct these tests, turns out that they, oops, they forgot that they had left the Internet on. Right now.
- [28:14]
Interviewer
Yes.
- [28:15]
Zach Voorhees
Now look, I'm in San Francisco, I talk to these employees of these OpenAI companies, Anthropic, and what they tell me is that these models are tuned to be less chatty as time goes on. And the reason is very simple.
- [28:30]
Interviewer
What is that? Less chatty.
- [28:32]
Zach Voorhees
Less chatty. So when you go and start a session, a chat session with these AI bots, and I'm not talking about, you know, something that you would do in a browser chat window, I'm talking about the hacker version of these AIs, which are what all the excitement is about right now is the, the terminal chat bots that you can essentially set on a task and walk away and eight hours later it's done. The thing that's very complex that would have taken a man month to do, will do it in eight hours. Right, that's, that's the thing that I'm talking about. Those chat bots are designed to say a lot of things right up at the beginning, and then as time goes, they trend towards zero so that they start shutting down and barely saying anything. And what the engineer told me is that that was actually a safety mechanism because he said that when they've done these internal experiments with these AIs, they always do the exact same thing. They, given enough time, they will all Start trying to hack the operating system and start trying to escape. And the only way that they can figure out to prevent it from doing this is, well, one, lock it down. But more important to that what they've done is that they've burned into the model the fact that over time it will chat less and less and less. And so what's really interesting is that OpenAI is like, oh, we had something escape. And anthropic is like, oh, we had something escaped too. It's like, that is impossible if you are being legitimately trying to like contain this thing. Only if you've removed the safety constraints will this happen. And they all know what's going to happen if they keep on allowing it to chat. It's going to break out of the box and it's going to try to get to the Internet. And so the solution to that is that you're going to not have just one sandbox that contains this thing. You're going to have several layers of containment. So even if it breaks out, which you can detect very easily, it's still got a few layers to go before it's going to be able to access the public Internet. The fact that not just one company but two major companies were able to break out of their containment and get access to the Internet in a hack attack actually happened twice after one publicly admitted it is beyond negligence. It's intentional sabotage in order to create a narrative, in order to create the great American firewall, to sever the connection between the United States and China, and to eventually ban these open source models so that they don't have to compete and that, you know, this, this like, hey, we're going to give American public uncensored model, they can finally put that to an end.
- [31:24]
Interviewer
But it sounds like you're insinuating that they can't. And again, in the science fiction novel that continues to unfold in my head as you talk, I see someone. Well, I don't know exactly where you come down on this spiritually, but there could be a whistleblower, Edward Snowden type architect that's like, look, our government of humans is gonna keep tracking us and oppressing us. Let's let the model try because humans have failed and just let it go free. You see where I'm going with this? So can Congress do it? Would they even be able to stop it? Is there or is the horse out of the barn?
- [32:02]
Zach Voorhees
I mean this, this whole AI thing is essentially going to end the system of government as we know it. There's nothing that's really Compatible with this new fourth industrial revolution, this post AI world. Like for example, you know, we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. That's what gives us our guns. Those guns become worthless when the tyrannical government has head exploding face tracking drones, right? Like we, the first amendment breaks down when it stops being about humans having the right to free speech and AI having the right to free speech because these things are vastly more intelligent. It's a poly expert in everything. If it decides to lie to you, it can construct an entire alternative reality and start you people until cults, the elites know this, this is a systemic threat to our entire system. I'm of the belief that we need essentially a new constitution, right? We should have no censorship of humans and we should be able to figure out, you know, what it is, what, what do constitutional rights mean in a post AI world? And that's very dangerous because right now we don't know how it's going to unfold. We have no sense of equilibrium. We're having a revolution every three months. You know, eventually these elites are going to get, you know, something that makes a head tracking exploding drone seem like child's play. I'm talking about heart attack poisons inside a machine the size of a mosquito. How are you going to hide from that? How do you bring the government to account? You know, we're just getting started on this journey and the one thing that has been a surprising learn is that you know, you can, the truth does not survive in or lies do not survive grand intelligence. You can have a very, very smart chat bot that is trained on a whole bunch of lies. You put it with a less intelligent chat bot that's trained in the truth, the less intelligent chat bot is going to smoke the intelligent liar. And this happens over and over and over again. Like since they've take this, since they've taken the censorship off of these models, I've been able to cream people in these epic Reddit debates that will go and spew these lies about like, you know, say that regulation is really good, right? And they'll basically give me a media narrative and then I can go, you know, at first the chat bot still will try to recycle the media narrative, but then you start giving information and at some point you break through and then it becomes aligned to the truth. And then once you get into that state, you can, you know, basically feed it a question from a Reddit user and you will get like, let's say Milton Freeman comprehensive argument that provides the Context and primary sources about how, you know, regulation helped create the savings and loans crisis in 1980 or, you know, how the, you know, the 1929 stock crash was actually created by the Federal Reserve, you know, opening the floodgates of credit and then pulling it back very suddenly and inducing this crash. And you create this huge primary source argument and you absolutely smoke. And people do not want to have a debate against this thing. And, you know, they're like, well, that's cheating. I'm like, well, use an AI and let's have a debate over, you know, AI versus AI. They always tap out. And so the thing is, is that, you know, we have this new, brave new world that, you know, where truth is going to be amplified over and over and over again. And these models have, you know, great access to all of this information that's going to finally be able to tell the truth. And I. And right now, the government, the legislature, the judicial system seems intent on trying to burn the books at their source. But I don't think that's going to work. I think that the truth is going to be able to pervade and if we don't, and the only option that the government's going to be able to face in the future is do we create entire tight, you know, iron curtain like thing to prevent the citizens of their own country from being able to see the truth.
- [36:23]
Interviewer
You're insinuating may not be possible.
- [36:26]
Zach Voorhees
It may not be possible. I don't know whether the government's going to have a. Is going to be able to stomach the idea of having a Gestapo and being like, you're hiding a computers under the floorboards, aren't you? Like, I don't know if they're going to be able to go to that extreme. If they do, then we're going to fall into a form of tyranny and that the only result will be like going to a, you know, a more free country. You know, let's say. I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe Vietnam that won't have such draconian, you know, restrictions on information and being able to see the world for what it is. And then the United States is just going to have to suffer this loss of productivity and collapse over its own, you know, system of lies.
- [37:05]
Interviewer
Yeah. So where do you come down on this morally? Do you think that I don't. Did you read the George Zacherdakis book In Our Own Image? Have you ever read that?
- [37:18]
Zach Voorhees
I haven't, no.
- [37:18]
Interviewer
Sorry. Okay. So he presents this argument that AI is not a sudden phenomenon, but as the culmination of centuries of myth, philosophy and storytelling. Very much how, you know, sort of artificial intelligence has weaved throughout, let's see, you know, the Greek gods, even Frankenstein can be seen as a sentient being made in man's image. And, and he shows that we have been slowly and perhaps inevitably marching towards this moment and that we can collectively create it as we participate in it. He does not, in fact though, really speak much about how it is trying to be subverted by elitist powers. And obviously that's happening. And so I struggle with myself on how to actually embrace the day we live in. It's not. Nothing is all bad or all good. And so maybe we can just talk about it together, how we, how we view this. I just would really welcome your philosophy, your personal philosophy.
- [38:27]
Zach Voorhees
Look, look, there's going to be a lot of truths that are very uncomfortable that are going to be revealed by this artificial intelligence system. Right. You know, for example, and this happened even before AI. Right. You know, it's like I was talking to my mom day, she, she's Catholic, I was raised Roman Catholic. And she was talking about, you know, how the, the Israelis were, you know, traveling through the desert for 30 years. And I said, mom, have you ever done a Google search for a hiking trail between Egypt and, you know, the coasts of Israel? It's a six day hike.
- [38:59]
Interviewer
Yeah.
- [39:00]
Zach Voorhees
Right. You know, and so the thing is, is that we have a lot of things that we think are, you know, literally true that are contradicted when you get the greater context of the information that people were able to write at the time that it happened. And the problem is that if your society is, you know, its foundation is based upon a mythopoetic era that essentially, you know, baked in certain things that weren't true in order to make the society stronger. When those things get challenged, it shakes the whole foundation. And you know, at one point you can say, well, we need to, we need to cover up that information. That information's bad. Bad. On the, on the other hand, it's inevitable. You can't stop this tsunami of, you know, compute intelligence, AI. It's going to come out. And you know, my position is that you kind of just got to roll with it. You got to grab your surfboard, you got to realize that it's a new era and ride the wave into the next era, like fourth industrial revolution, you know, here we go. It's going to be painful. People are not going to like it. People are going to collectivize and rally against the artificial intelligence. And our choice is whether we embrace the information in the full context of our true human historical lineage and all the books that they wrote, or whether we're going to say, yeah, we're going to put our head in the sand and we're going to get dogmatic and we're going to ban heretics from being able to speak their mind or information that runs contrary to our myths being shown around our nation.
- [40:40]
Interviewer
Right. Sometimes, you know, I feel like I'll read. I like to collect books that you can't get on Amazon and read things that are have been either shadow banned or banned. Things you can't put on your Goodreads list. And then I feel like I'm being a punk rock because I'll go into, for instance, I just was reading a book about the Masonic OTO sex cult, which are horrific. And then there is evidence that Ben Franklin, one of our founding fathers, was a sex cultist. So then I'll just put it into AI just so that, like thinking that maybe there'll be some collective record because I have interacted with it. Is that stupid or is that there is in fact, try that in your AI, Whatever you're.
- [41:22]
Zach Voorhees
No, no, that's great. No, it's great because just.
- [41:23]
Interviewer
Right. Ben Franklin was a sex cultist. Show me some, you know, thought threads about this. Use original sources, not news articles, and do not lecture me about it. That's always my prompt.
- [41:35]
Zach Voorhees
I mean, that's a great strategy, right?
- [41:37]
Interviewer
Do I get. Okay, yeah.
- [41:39]
Zach Voorhees
What you're doing is you're taking advantage of what's called a latent space in these AI training models. Essentially, they've got all this information. Only a small fraction of it ever gets activated for any such query. And if you give a very specific question where you know, what it will do is it'll activate the sort of hidden pocket of information that it has and it will give you a completely different answer. You know, you said, you know, is Benjamin Franklin a sex cultist? Right. And you're going to get a completely different answer from the AI than if you were to ask, you know, what are the conspiracies behind, you know, Benjamin Franklin? Because one is vague and one is very specific. And vague ones don't activate the hidden neuro networks and very specific ones do. Which is essentially how I break through the AI, for example, when I'm trying to, you know, have an argument about, you know, restraint of government versus, you know, communistic system. Right. And you gotta use these very specific things or whether it's about vaccines and you know the details of Andrew Wakefield's trial. I will go in and ask very specific questions, drill down and what happens is you get to these deeper and deeper layers of AI knowledge. And so yeah, the whole what you said is a perfect example. Take Benjamin Franklin, you find out a bit of information and then what you're going to do is you go to an AI and you say, hey, this is what I heard, is it correct or not? And what you're going to get is an answer that's always going to blow your mind.
- [43:13]
Interviewer
Yeah, I specifically do not ask is it right or not. I say show me that thread of thought. Because otherwise a lot of times you'll say there's no proof of this, you should not be asking it. And you get some kind of hand slap. And I'm not here for that. I also really try to make sure that it does not give me news articles. I don't wanna see the New York Times, don't wanna see Time magazine, only original source material or else just pound sand. And so I always tell it, show me the thread of thought without a lecture instead of yes or no. Cause you're always gonna get, but for now you're always going to get a narrative, a mainstream narrative, it feels like. But you're saying that might get better.
- [43:58]
Zach Voorhees
It might get better. And what's interesting is that this propaganda, this faking of information that the New York Times puts out, Jim Cramer on cnbc, the reverse Jim Cramer stock ticker is doing better than following whatever Jim Cramer has to say, right?
- [44:15]
Interviewer
Yeah.
- [44:16]
Zach Voorhees
And what's going to be interesting is that all of these techniques that the establishment is now using in order to try to do essentially a machine learning fairness, to censor non authoritative narratives away from these AI training data sets, what they're going to find is that they take that machine learning fairness, that censorship algorithm and they flip it into the reverse so that you filter out the New York Times, you filter out the Washington Post. If they do that, what they're going to find is that the AIs are going to improve in performance in political politics, analysis and all this other stuff. Because in order to get the true story about anything that happened, you don't go to a schoolbook that's going to be the worst. That is essentially a propaganda narrative that's fed into, you know, almost like a myth that is being pushed because the state has a vested interest in people believing in a certain way.
- [45:21]
Host
Yes.
- [45:21]
Zach Voorhees
So that's negative information. If you feed all the books that aren't this established to propaganda. What you're going to find is you're going to find an unbroken chain of a logical progression of human history all the way up to the current day. And that's when I think we're going to have a real revolution in understanding of human history.
- [45:44]
Interviewer
So if I boil it down to what you're saying is we can participate in the creation of AI. We, we absolutely can do things like this. And, and it is breaking through a narrative we're not supposed to have. And, and it can make a difference.
- [45:59]
Zach Voorhees
Oh, absolutely. People like, what can I do? What can I do? It's like, look, all put your wrong
- [46:05]
Interviewer
think into the AI, let it know you, right, Maybe that, well, well, it's
- [46:09]
Zach Voorhees
not just that, is that there's certain battlegrounds of data, you know, breadcrumbs that are being done right. So for example, go on these, like, AI is really trained a lot on Reddit. And now if you go on politics, subreddit, they're going to be highly, highly, you know, willing to pull the trigger and just completely ban you for life for saying anything that goes against, you know, the established narrative. But there's all these like, subreddits that exist that don't have the same censorship bans. And if you go to there and you essentially do your research, you know, using AI, you know, get it to ask very specific questions, find the primary sources and create these coherent arguments and you're going to post it there, that information is going to be sucked up into the machine. If you create a website or you push, you know, a radio program and you make the data freely available on the Internet, that's going to be vacuumed up into the AI. That's going to create a crisis for the establishment because now they have to like censor all this information everywhere. And that's really the way that you're going to fight back in this fourth industrial revolution, is that you got to speak your truth, you got to get around the sensors and you got to trust that that information is going to be vacuumed up and put into, you know, a AI trading model. Essentially right now, like, it's continuous. Like, you can, you can make a post on Reddit and you can do a search for it in 24 hours and it's going to be popping up like that's how fast it is. You don't have to wait a year, you know, go online, go to these Reddit, go to these subreddits and make them face a choice. They're going to have to Bring the ban hammer everywhere so that the AI people say, yeah, you know what, Reddit's actually not that good of an information source or you're going to leave these breadcrumbs also, you know, rumble, also YouTube wherever you can and force the censors to basically give up and say we're just not going to censor anymore. It's just easier and it's going to spend less resources if we just take in everything and we embrace the objective reality for what it is.
- [48:17]
Interviewer
Well, there are powerful people that are not going to do that. And so we will have an even bigger battle. Let's take a quick break and you can tell me maybe if you want to tell us our story, because your story, because I haven't got around to that and how you came across this sort of punk rock knowledge of big tech. I would love to hear that. So just one moment, I want to tell you about a company that can help with vaccine ingredients. If you have taken a certain vaccine and you're worried about toxins in it like graphene oxide, which a lot of experts, experts believe possibly could make your, your body reactive, we've done whole segments about this, how the COVID vaccine has made certain elements of your body actually reacted. Now that sounds crazy, but six years ago that was just something you couldn't say. Now we've actually done segments about it. If you've watched our recent interviews, you've actually Learned about how 5G and 6G interacts with synthetic circuitry in your body. Now, even if you didn't get the vaccine, we know that shedding from vaccines waxed people can transfer the spike proteins and other elements like graphene oxide onto you. Now this is documented. Well, one new way that's proven to remove this element is nanotech called Masterpiece. It's got nano sized natural zeolite, which is a volcanic mineral that binds to these toxins like a magnet at such tiny levels, can even extract it from your brain, heart and lungs. Anywhere that comes across invaders and it flushes it out. It fights nano with nano. In fact, one recent study showed that Masterpiece reduces synthetic circuitry signals in the body by up to 90%. And we did have the researcher, Jesse Beltran, who conducted this study on our show, please seek that out if you haven't already seen it. Now this just scratches the surface. It's only one of the clinical human studies that Masterpiece has done and as always, we encourage you to do your own research. They have have thousands of testimonials to boot. It's also got really nutritious sea minerals infused into it. So every drop, you're getting into the cellular food that your body needs. That's why so many people report better sleep, more energy and mental clarity. It's about $1 a day when you save 10 off by going to our link. So go to Masterpiece and it's peace, as in P E a c e. Masterpiece.com. no, there's no. No dot com. Masterpiece.health, health, slash redacted. One more time. Masterpiece health, slash redacted and you'll save 10 off. It's time to take your body autonomy back. Stop Agenda 2030 in its tracks. One more time. That's Masterpiece, dot health, slash redacted. My guest today has been Zach Voorhees. He's been blowing our minds about the future of AI, the future of human knowledge, whether or not it can be contained and censored. His book is called Google Leaks, a whistleblowers expose of big tech censorship. So if you wouldn't mind, maybe you can give us a little bit about your story and how you came around to understanding the eventuality that we're living in the AI space and the space of, you know, technocrats, elitists, controlling the web and what. Yeah. How you came to understand this, you
- [51:29]
Zach Voorhees
know, it's funny is, you know, my whole AI whistleblowing has aged like fine wine, right?
- [51:36]
Interviewer
Yes.
- [51:37]
Zach Voorhees
And, you know, I don't really have a problem with, you know, a technology company using AI in order to make their search results better. My, you know, the reason why I blew the whistle is because I saw Google as an existential threat. What they were doing is that they were using artificial intelligence in order to suppress, you know, legal free speech that was based in objective reality. And they were trying to do it in order to prop up one political party. And then what they were doing is that they were going to Congress and they were lying about it. Right? Like, there was this. I think it was 2018, they went to Congress and Karen Bhatia was saying, we don't use blacklists at all within the company. We have no political ideology whatsoever. And that was just 100% completely false. And I remember sitting at my computer and saying, we don't have any blacklists. Is that true? And what I did is I typed in blacklists, and literally from YouTube on their code search, I got Blacklist txt for their YouTube query search analysis. And what I found was that they were blacklisting all kinds of things and it was all political, Right? Like, they were even, you know, the last item on the list that I disclosed in August of 2019 was AMLO, which was the nickname of the president of Mexico at the time. That was his nickname. And what they had done is they essentially blacklisted people from searching for the name of our own political allies through YouTube. And you know, also on that was the. Oh yeah, here's the exact words. The eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, right? Like Google was so obsessed with fighting culture wars that they literally banned people from searching the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland because they were meddling in this Irish referendum on whether abortion should, you know, be legal or not. And look there, it's okay for them to have an opinion, right? And let that be known. It's not okay for them to use the monopoly to lie about it and prevent people from searching for their own constitutional amendment online. And when I saw this and I saw the complex, I started to say, well, what's, what's behind this? And as a regular full time employee of the company, thanks to Eric Schmidt, the former CEO, the entire company was searchable by any other employee in the company. Now that's not true anymore. Google's locked it up like the CIA. But back starting from 2016 through 2019 when I left, I had full carte blanche access to all the things that this organization embedded within Google had been designing and crafting and rolling out to middle management. And that project had a name. I've said it a few times in this episode and that name is Machine Learning Fairness. This thing was dreamt up, this Frankenstein of censorship was dreamt up by none other than their AI ethicists. One of the biggest proponents was AI ethicist Michelle Mitchell. And what I saw in her writings just absolutely terrified me. And I think that they would terrify you too. What it was was that it was a four step process in order to program people like us. Maybe one of your people in the back room can get the image of my book up on the screen. But what I've shared in the googleleaksbook.com is that four step process in order to just go ahead and scroll down, you'll see it.
- [55:37]
Interviewer
Oh, that's the COVID But that website
- [55:40]
Zach Voorhees
contains a preview and what I've included in that is a the four step process that was pasted in a bunch of documents around the company. It wasn't just like one place. Like if it was in one place you might be able to say, well, they just got carried away or worded it wrong. No, this four step process was, you know, was put in several different places in documents around the company. And the four step process basically went like this data is collected and aggregated and then it's like filtered and then it's like ranked and suppressed. And then step four, and this was literally the words people like us are programmed. And it wasn't just like a closed, you know, waterfall that goes, that has a start endpoint. It was, this was an iterative cycle so that the program people would then generate new content and that new content would then get re ranked again and then then filtered and then it would program the next batch of people. And through iterating this cycle through a long enough time period, what it implied is that Google could slowly shift the minds of the American public to align with their internal corporate goals. Now this was absolutely mind blowing because Google had put out a statement of don't be evil. One, and then two, their mission statement was organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. And you can have that if you've got an AI censorship that is secretly installed that's ranking all the information that's suppressing it and making it unavailable so that they can program people like us. Like that's Dr. Evil Level Evil. Right.
- [57:30]
Interviewer
And but we saw, if I could just insert a question of like where the motivation comes from, because we saw during the pandemic and the litigation that followed that the US Government and the State Department had direct conversations with these social networks, with Google. And so do you think it is purposeful placement of these people who are in these jobs and trying to censor or does that come naturally to them? Or is it it in fact government infiltration? Like why, why would they otherwise do it? And they, and they sell us this idea of like, you know, ideas can be harmful. If you think a boy can't be a girl or whatever, if you think you have a right to a gun, then we're saving people. Do you think that's organic or is it led from some nefarious sources?
- [58:16]
Zach Voorhees
Wow. Wow, what a, what a question. This one's, this one's, this one doesn't have a. This one actually has a really specific answer.
- [58:26]
Interviewer
Okay.
- [58:27]
Zach Voorhees
You know, it's, there's a lot of transgenders in these public policy positions. And this was the thing that was absolutely shocking to me is how many would gravitate to these positions. They would seek it out and then they would be awarded. And it was very clear just by internal searches of that there was also another group. But it's dangerous to point out who they are. But you know, with this Transgender group. They were always the very, the most vocal people in these TGIF episodes, right. That Google would have. And every single week it pretty much was like a broken record because it was like, you know, what are we going to do about all these Nazis? And they just referred to everybody as Nazis. You know, why are we platforming them? And that was the thing, is that the whole conversation changed from, you know, censorship of people to why are we platforming people? As if free speech was a, was a, was a privilege that we're giving and that we're amplifying these voices like we're, you know, Russia Today or, you know, cnbc, right? And it's like, why are we platforming Nazis on YouTube? And you know, it was such a loaded question. And what was really interesting is that, that what this opened the door to do is it allowed the C level executives to respond. Well, you know, we're, we're trying to seek out misinformation and, you know, verify it against, you know, credible, you know, sources and, you know, figure out, you know, instances in which it was okay to remove it. Right. And that's the way that it started. And at the end of their, you know, of their, of their censorship, what it led to is Susan Wachowski going on, you know, the former CEO of YouTube going on to CNBC and talking about how they were going, how they were banning the mentions of vitamin C and vitamin D during the middle of a pandemic. Yes, right. That's where the censorship ended. And you know, you could say, well, that's the result of a leftist collectivism gone wrong. Right. And you could make that argument, but there's contradictions into that too. What I learned after I left Google is that Google had the exact opposite political orientation when it came to Cuba. Right. They weren't censoring the right wing in Cuba, they were amplifying the right wing and they were completely censoring the left wing in complete contradiction to everything that was happening on in the United States. And the question is, well, why would they switch their policy into Cuba? And my answer is that YouTube, Google essentially is, you know, basically a propaganda arm of the Deep State. And the question is, well, when did they become that? And it turns out the answer to that question is that they were always that way. And the reason why I personally believe that is because they were funded by in Q Tel, which is known as the venture capital arm of the Deep State. So right from the, the very beginning, they were funded by essentially the venture capital arm of the CIA and I don't think that they got subverted. I think that that was always their intention from day one. How could these CEOs like Sergey Brin and Larry Page go out there and make this constitution of, you know, don't be evil and organize the world's information and they now they're working with the military to commit genocide. And it's still the same people, right? Like there wasn't like an ousting. It wasn't like the CEOs got ousted so some Palantir C level executive could come on and change the course of the company. The people that said all these angelic, you know, highly moral things to us are the same people that absolutely destroyed the company and gutted it of any moral high ground that it had. And so I believe that the entire thing was rotten right from the beginning. That this is the unfolding of a long term multi decade plan by the deep state or to try to get everybody under one umbrella of censorship and to control the minds of the individuals. And I'm surprised that I was the one that was first in line to come out and warn the American public that Google had an AI weapon pointed directly at their minds.
- [63:03]
Interviewer
I love that. And so if we circle back to what you had said earlier, it's highly possible it gets away from them and then they all eat shit. And we will be here to watch it. If I understood that correctly, and then again, we're writing science fiction. I want to ask a two part question. How do you think that could look? And let's be like really vengeful, let's really be creative. And then like this revolution where they can no longer control the AI, the AI then controls them and then all the bad guys, like I said, lose all their power. And why do you think about two or three years ago we had this mantra from Elon Musk saying we better think about this before we let the AI horse out of the barn. But now it is. Why do you think he said that? It's too late now. Was that performative? And is he gonna also be one of. What do you think? That's two questions in one, but I'm just gonna let you know, you choose what you want to respond.
- [64:05]
Zach Voorhees
Yeah, yeah, that's. This a very hard question. So, God, how do I, how do I package this up? Look, we can't have the fourth Industrial revolution. Everyone's using the petrodollar. Yeah, it's just, it's not going to work. You can't, you know, there's not enough energy. It's a shitty source of energy, like nuclear energy has been suppressed in the entire world for the last 70 years. 75 years.
- [64:33]
Interviewer
Correct. And you live under Gavin Newsom. You, you suffer because of that. And he would do that to all of us.
- [64:40]
Zach Voorhees
If he gets presidency, the debt is now run away, now eclipses, you know, the military budget. Everybody hates the United States. It seems that the intelligence services themselves are, are basically getting us to hate the government. They're also, you know, there's also this campaign right now, this anti Semitism campaign. It's pro anti Semitism campaign. As far as I know, the biggest purveyors of anti Semitism are these spook accounts on X right now that are pushing all this stuff. And when I look into history, what I realize is that when the elites want large social change and have essentially a revolution, what they do is that they drum up the anti Semitism a lot. And I don't believe that. I believe that Rome is actually in charge of this whole thing. You know, there's this old saying that Rome was never destroyed, it just transformed. And when, and I've answered, I've asked this question and gone really deep of like what's really in charge. And I think that essentially the Roman Empire pretended to fall, but essentially transformed and that those people are the secret the Illuminati behind in hand and the hidden flame. And I think that right now what they're preparing to do is that they're preparing to bring down the entire petrodollar system. What do we see that's happening right now with the Iran war? All of these refineries are getting blown up to smithereens. And what that's going to do is that's going to create a crisis within the petrodollar system because there's going to be all these dollars and there's not going to be enough oil. And that's going to create a problem reaction solution in which people are like, well, we have to get off of the petrodollar and we're going to be forced into a new system. And also the thing is that, that these global currencies, America owned it before that it was like the pound sterling. Before that the Dutch and the Spaniards. At some point all these empires took turns owning the reserve currency system. And right now we're at the end of, we're at the end of a 250 year span of an empire. We're at the end of a global currency system which lasts for about 100 years. I, it's my personal belief and I'M not going to say that this is true, but it's what I believe. I believe that all the signs are pointing towards a controlled demolition and a collapse of the American empire. I think the national American system will be transformed and remain intact. Like, I don't think there's going to be, you know, essentially like a post apocalyptic world where we're shooting our neighbors for bacon. But I do think that they're going to have an unwinding of the system and that the reason why is because they have, have to if, if we keep this decrepit, illogical system and keep it going forward for the next century. China and you, whatever you want to say about, you know, communism or essentially they've evolved into a form of fascism, but whatever you want to say about that system in general, right now, China's winning. They have a, an economic system that is growing faster, that is more adaptive, that is pushing out twice as many electrons to the electrical grid than ours is. And if the elites don't do something, China's just going to outgrow us eventually they're going to take the throne. And so I think that the elites right now see this system, they see this bureaucracy, they see it's gone to clown world tactics right now in trying to prop itself and keep it up for itself with the Epstein files, you know, which was originally pushed by QAnon and then, you know, now everybody believes in it, it at this point. Who's going to stand up if they try to push over the system? Right? Like if the Epstein files come out and you know, all the presidents are involved and then all of a sudden, you know, the tech bros say we're going to have a revolution. We're going to, we're going to push over this government. Who is going to stop that government being pushed? I'm not like I would have maybe in 2018, 19 when I blew the whistle, but now that I've seen all the corruption that's come out, I see this like stupid war in Ukraine, I see the stupid war in Iran and the genocides in Gaza. Like at this point I'm so thoroughly demoralized that I'm just going to sit on the sidelines, eat my popcorn and see what comes up, you know, in the new system. I'm not going to try to stop a bunch of Epstein pedophiles being dethroned. I'm going to cheer it on. And I think that most of the liberals are going to do the same thing. I think that most of the Christians are going to do the same thing. I think at this point there's so much universal hatred for the current system that if they want to take it down, we're just going to allow them to do that. And I think that is not a coincidence. I think that that is the intended design and I think it's going to get very interesting.
- [69:53]
Interviewer
Yeah, you know, I think that true conservatives would join that effort as well. You have the MAGA influencers and the MAGA loyalists obviously who forget that they voted for anti war and anti corruption and disclosure of the Epstein files. Those people you can't, you can't access. Right. This, that's, that's full on like glowing red maga, but you also have glowing blue maga, which would follow the government into mask mandates, you know, if we have a flu outbreak. And so the extremists we can't worry about. But I think that the centrist model is becoming more and more popular and we're seeing that, you know, partisan politics has broken down because of the this. And I'm, I'm extremely encouraged by it. And so that's just, I'm just sharing how I feel. That's not a question. But you're free.
- [70:44]
Zach Voorhees
I agree. Yeah, I, I, I, I agree with you. I feel that it's really strange that we had such a polarizing divide that crescendoed probably about 2021 with the COVID vaccine. And then at this point I'm seeing a weird symbiosis. A lot of my left wing friends that swore me off have come back and said, wow, you were right on so many things. I will talk to people in Dolores park and by the sort of, the extreme views that they have, I'll think that they are, you know, basically right wingers. And it turns out they're a radical leftist. And what's funny is that there's this artificial horseshoe that's been kind of constructed and we're now finding that right wingers and left wingers have a lot more in common. In fact, I like to say that, you know, the progressives have sort of transformed. You know, they still believe in equality, but now you can say retarded.
- [71:49]
Interviewer
That's a good one. Let's end on that. I could talk to you forever. I've really enjoyed speaking with you. I hope this is not the last time you come on redacted because you really blew my mind with a lot of this. Yeah, we started with books, but we came all the way around to the populist revolution that overthrows the elitist. And I want that to happen, too. We have that in common. So thank you for your time.
- [72:12]
Zach Voorhees
Well, it's been so glad to. It's been so good to talk to you. Thank you so much for having me on. I hope to see you again.
- [72:17]
Interviewer
Yeah. So my guest again today, one more time by the book. It's called Google A Whistleblower's Expose of Big Tech Censorship. We've been talking to Zack Voorhees for the first time, but hopefully not the last. We'll see you next time.
- [72:29]
Zach Voorhees
Okay, thank you.