Elon Musk Takes Down GARM and Why it Matters | Real Talk

Alex, thank you so much for coming in such short notice. It's been a really big week when it comes to tech and censorship and all of those big tech censors that have been coming after you at Breitbart, after us at PragerU, Daily Wire, etc. So people have been asking us all kinds of questions about what does the GARM lawsuit mean, what does the antitrust lawsuit mean, and who would be a better person than you to come and speak about it directly. So welcome into PragerU again. Thank you, and I'm happy to be here under really fun circumstances. We got a win. It's not going to be the biggest win ever, but it's a really important win, I think, because the world is starting to understand that a lot of these self-appointed hall monitors, policemen of the internet, are actually frauds who are trying to bankrupt companies like yours and mine. What I love about this lawsuit is the fact that we are actually fighting back, because for too long, these behemoths seemed so big that nobody wanted to push back or do anything because nobody thought that they would have the money or the ability to push back. And so here comes Elon Musk with his, you know, really bold vision of trying to fix things. And so let's talk a little bit about the GARM lawsuit and what does it actually mean? Well, let's back up. What is GARM and what have they done? Okay, so GARM is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is one of these just Orwellian names that sounds like, oh, who wouldn't like a global alliance for responsible media? That sounds incredible. Well, it's really part of this group called the World Federation of Advertisers, which basically is the biggest advertising conglomerate in the world. About 90% of ads that you'll see online will go through this company. So this is a true monopoly in every sense of the word. And they stood up this initiative called GARM, which it seems like from our history keeping at Breitbart, this was designed specifically to bankrupt conservative media. And thanks to Jim Jordan and his team that have been investigating them for the last year and a half, we know that's fundamentally true, that they got smoking gun evidence that part of what they're doing, if not the main thing that they're doing, is trying to put pressure on advertisers to not buy advertising real estate on conservative outlets. So how does this work? So GARM is a conglomerate of some of these six big advertisers. Can you give me examples of some of these companies that would advertise through GARM and when GARM applies pressure on them to not work with you guys, who are those people who are basically boycotting us? Sure. So a couple of the big ones that are really important to know right off the top. Group M, this is the world's biggest advertising buying media buying agency, period. Unilever, that's going to be something that a lot of people will have heard of. Group M, for example, they are basically wanting to hunt down Breitbart and to get us boycotted. And we do have smoking gun evidence of this. I want to bring up a quote I've got here. This is from, am I allowed to say bad words on this because I'm just quoting them? I'll use letters. But John Montgomery, he's an executive of Group M. And through Jim Jordan's research, he found in October 2021 that he wanted to attack Breitbart. He said before Breitbart crossed the line and started spouting blatant misinformation, we had long discussions about whether we should include them on an exclusion list. So boycott list. They want to boycott Breitbart for getting advertising and for getting media buys. So he says, as much as we hated their ideology and BS, he did not use the letters, we couldn't really justify blocking them for misguided opinion. So he admits he looks into it. We haven't done anything wrong. But then he says we watched them very carefully and it didn't take long for them to cross the line. Now, what did we do to cross the line? We don't know. That's not in the report. No one knows what we did, but he basically put a target on our back and went for a witch hunt to try to get us boycotted. He did the same stuff. And GARM and GARM affiliates have done the same stuff with Fox, Daily Wire, Joe Rogan, any sort of conservative outlet that you care about. That's what GARM's purpose was. And it's not just Group M, Unilever, but other companies like Orsted. This is a big one. Orsted wanted to specifically organize a group boycott. This is all written out. You're not supposed to write this stuff out unless you want to get caught, which is very strange to me. I don't typically think these people is dumb, but they gave smoking guns for Jordan's people to go on cover. Well, they're not dumb. They just assume that nobody's going to go after them because usually that's the case. As I mentioned earlier, nobody wants to fight these big, giants because they're afraid that they're going to lose. Right. So a couple of the other companies, just famous ones that people will know who are involved, Diageo, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, all of these are involved. And not necessarily, I'm not saying that any of those specifically were leading the boycotts per se, but these are the type of advertisers that are involved in this group. So this is the biggest of the best, Adidas. These are the biggest companies on earth. And the goal was to separate their advertising dollars from conservative media to starve us. It is economic warfare that was going on. And what Musk did, which I think was very clever, is that he actually tried to play nice at first, which you and I have done this with NewsGuard, which I'm sure we'll come back to that in a bit. But Musk tried to get reinstated in Garm. He was a part of it, Twitter was, X was, and then left. And he wanted to get back because platforms are actually second-class members. It's not just the media outlets like Breitbart. The platforms too can be a part of it. So he says, well, I want to come in. He gets in and immediately realizes what's going on. He sees the report. A lot of people saw Linda Iaccarino, who's running X on Musk's behalf. They see the report and they say it's clear, she said specifically, it's clear that they were going after us because of our views. It's not about misinformation. It's not about being a responsible media. It's about, he is a lot of pro-Trump, pro-conservative, pro-family values content now on that platform. And that's what they don't like. They want this globalist leftist philosophy to dominate, not just in terms of media outlets and platforms, but the advertising dollars need to go to those companies to feed them because they're struggling now and they need all that money and they want to starve us out. So they know that they'll suffocate you economically by coming together. If they didn't come together, then possibly each of them on their own will actually take advantage of it and go and advertise with you and say, well, you know, great, now I have cheaper ad space. But they know that if they all as a monopoly come together and say, let us all agree to boycott Breitbart, agree to boycott X, agree to boycott Daily Wire. If we all agree to do it at the same time, then we can really control the narrative and basically decide who lives and who dies. That's it. And that's exactly right. It's sort of like a unionization of these companies, which some might consider that a antitrust violation. And Jim Jordan's office clearly thought that was the case. I think Elon Musk's people agreed. And all of a sudden, there's a lot of pressure. Rumble was launching their own lawsuit. A lot of people are starting to understand what was going on, which was when all these companies collude to try to target, based on viewpoint, certain groups, that's supposed to be illegal. And clearly Garm started to think the writing was on the wall because now they've folded up shop. Now, what that means long-term, that's another interesting question. But overall, your summation is perfect in that this was a hyper unionization of these companies to shame the other companies and get them to agree that if we back out of the space and the ad rates go down, you don't swallow those up and get all those eyeballs. Now, Breitbart, we have eight-figure readers every month. We're at record levels of traffic. These are educated people. These are people with above average income. These are people with huge levels of engagement in American life, civic life. You would think these are the type of people that advertisers would love. Well, apparently not because we're getting targeted one group after the next for boycotts. And those people have to go against their shareholders' interests to boycott us because their shareholders would benefit from their advertisements in front of the eyeballs of our hyper engaged, generally above average income level audience. Wow. That's another lawsuit in the making. You would think that shareholders would also sue. Right. But they're all intimidated because it's all a cabal. It's all groupthink. And it comes from people that are not just Americans. This is the WFA. This is a globalist entity. This is a lot of the top marketers in the world. Even if it's an American company, a lot of them now are stationed all over the world. So they're in places like Belgium, Brussels, stuff like that. This is an international effort. And a lot of these censorship entities are in the U.K. They're in Belgium. They're not just in the U.S. So we're getting hyper pressure in the American advertising market from outside influences, the type of people who absolutely hate the sort of populist nationalist wing of American conservatism. These people detest us, and they're the ones who are leading the charge. They have no connection to our lives whatsoever, but they're going to tell American companies where they can and can't advertise. So how relieved or confident are you that now that GARM is gone, that you will have more freedom to run advertisements? Yeah, not much. I mean, the WFA still exists, and I don't doubt that they're trying to spin up a different way to boycott. And there's all these other entities, from NewsGuard to the GDI, Global Disinformation Index, who have the same exact mission, that they're trying to make sure that there's no flow of cash into businesses like mine. Because when there is, then we grow, and then we get bigger, and we report more stuff they don't like, and we write more opinions they don't like. And that's what's going to happen. So they have to try to starve us out. It's been going on for half a decade at this point. We're used to it. It's just nice to see that we're gaining these allies, people like Musk, people like Jim Jordan's office. Just the fact that Jim Jordan's office went to the mat on this for a year and a half, just hitting the pavement, pounding the pavement on this issue. I mean, we didn't ask him to do it. He just did it. And it's so cool, and we're very grateful for it. What is Jim Jordan working on now? Is he pretty much done now that GARM is gone? Well, I think there's a lot of high-fiving going on, and then once he's done with that, hopefully he'll probably have to recuperate, maybe a little shoulder soreness after the high-fiving. But he still wants to hear from a lot of these entities. So he sent out questions, pretty straightforward questions about some of these emails, showing that clearly you've got an effort that's going on to get groups together to boycott based off a viewpoint. We've got the receipts. He showed them receipts. Can you explain how this is not antitrust violations? They all caved. They all basically said, well, we're going to fold, and then we're not going to respond. So it's been very chaotic the last week or two. I just spoke to Jordan's office the morning that we're recording this, and they still want answers. They still want to get the answers to their questions that likely prompted GARM folding. Just because you fold doesn't mean you still have to answer. So they're trying to get answers from places like Unilever and GroupM, and hopefully we'll get some more at least content. I want to hear them explain themselves. How did you think this was okay? This is so fundamentally a violation of antitrust. You almost wonder how they thought could get away with it. The reason why, they thought that their conduct, even though it's shocking to us, that they believed that their conduct was based off of some technicality, that they weren't misleading their advertisers, and they were basically trying to do something positive for them that their brands would look bad on our platforms, which is not true. It's not true. Their brands would thrive on our platforms. So they mislead them, and that's the whole loop that continues. Do you think that companies like yours would be able to sue for damages? I mean, there's just incredible loss of income because of what GARM has done, and essentially slandering your company. It's such an interesting question that I've asked lawyers who, I'm not an attorney, and I've asked so many lawyers, and they always feel like it would be an uphill battle to wage these lawsuits. Our pockets aren't nearly as deep as theirs. These are the biggest companies in the deepest pockets in the world, and so I think that that's where he does deserve some pretty epic credit in this regard, is that he files a suit. He's citing Jordan's report in the suit, so he's reading the right stuff. He's getting the right details, and they put the suit out, and they know that he's not suing for fun. He means business, and that's the type of stuff that I don't have those types of resources at Breitbart to fight every war of attrition legally, and they know that. That's law fear. That's the stuff Trump complains about. That's weaponization of the variation of it, so it feels like a suit to me, but I'm not an attorney, so any attorneys watching, if you think we got a case, then alex.breitbart.com. I'm really easy to find. Send me an email. Exactly. Well, so many people have suggested to us that we should try to sue NewsGuard somehow because they have basically done to us what Garm has done to you, and NewsGuard has attacked you as well, and I know that in the past, you've had a similar situation with the Sleeping Giants, so Sleeping Giants, another advertisement agency conglomerate of some sort comes and attacks you, and once they're exposed, they just disappear and dismantle and then give birth to yet another censorship type of organization, and so my fear is that if we rest on our laurels and only celebrate that Garm is down now, yet another monster will come into the scene. I have a perfect analogy. This is Dennis Prager talking about how you don't go to war with a person. You go to war with an ideology, so we need to go against the left, not against Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, et cetera, and I think that's resonant here because the war's not with Garm. It's the virtually no one who's watching this has heard of Garm, but they know that Garm is representative of this group of censorship, globalist type, a super state, international people from typically the establishment of the conservative Republican Party, Democrats, left-wingers, et cetera, that have been working together to try to make sure upstart grassroots conservative entities do not thrive and cannot get our information out and thrive in this environment, so we all know that's what this is about. It's not really about Garm. It's about this philosophy, this ideology that the First Amendment is not a good thing, that it's too extreme, which is a opinion that is vocalized that Jordan captures from Garm. This guy, Garm co-founder, Rod Rakowitz, he is critical of an extreme global interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and he's criticized the Constitution for being written by white men exclusively. That's the head of Garm. What's his color? I don't know. He's a white man. He sounds pretty white to me. As if it matters. I didn't pull down a picture of him. I should have thought to do that. Doesn't matter to anybody. Yeah, so you've got a white man complaining about white men white-splaining to the world, while he white-splains to all of us. And that's what we're dealing with, is people who see our Constitution as flawed because white guys wrote it. How do we get through to those people? We can't. We have to defeat them. And so how do we defeat them? Well, one lawsuit at a time is a good place to start. But the war isn't just with Garm, because again, WFA is still there. GDI is still there. NewsGuard is still there. You brought up Sleeping Giants. Sleeping Giants were the OGs of online cancel culture censorship. So I wrote extensively about this in my book Breaking the News. It's really my favorite chapter. That's why I plug it. It's not my favorite one as well. It's why you're here today. Thank you. Yeah. And I won't. I'm unlikely to see another penny if you pick it up from it. So it's I'm plugging it because you'll like reading it. But their story is they launched in the wake of the 2016 election, where Trump won and people were trying to understand how Breitbart dominated Facebook. We were the biggest outlet on Facebook. And we are trafficked with shaping narratives. And everyone in Obama world and Hillary world, Barack Obama himself, Brian Fallon, who is Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta, all of them were saying, basically, we missed some of the stuff Breitbart saw. So the goal was to try to suppress us. And one of the tactics they used was to try to toxify us with advertisers. And this group called Sleeping Giants did that, where they basically went to each and every advertiser that advertises at Breitbart. They tried to select cherry-picked headlines after we publish 100 stories a day times 15, 16 years. So however many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of stories, they'd pick whichever ones they could take out of context and try to use to toxify us. And it had some degree of success. Now, we're big enough that we were able to survive it, but it ended up resetting advertisers thinking about the news industry and where their advertisers should appear. So what ended up happening, we got a pandemic. All of a sudden, advertisers don't want to advertise on any pandemic stories, not just at Breitbart, New York Times, the NBC, ABC, CNN, wherever it is. They don't want to put their advertisers against that sort of content, because why are they making money off of a pandemic? Wars break out all over the world, Ukraine, Russia. They don't want to put their advertisements on death and destruction. So it re-centered how advertisers are approaching their inventory, and they're not going to buy it on anything perceived as controversial. So their next target after Breitbart was Tucker Carlson. So how's Tucker doing right now? He's been doing pretty well. He's kind of all over the place, doing world tours, selling out stadiums. Independent? Independent. And so they couldn't take him out. They couldn't take Fox out. They couldn't take Breitbart out, but they ended up taking out themselves, which is one of the best parts of this whole thing. We just saw last week, huge layoffs at USA Today. We saw huge layoffs at ABC. CNN is cutting places. All of this is because it is really hard to make money in the news business, which is probably a net negative in a lot of ways, but it's a net positive in other ways too, because the fake news was being funded by these advertising entities. So it was the left that tried to take out Breitbart, tried to take out Tucker, and they failed. What they ended up doing was taking out themselves. And so whenever you're seeing these cuts to newsrooms, that they're doing these mass layoffs, you should be reminded that the left was the ones who did this because they re-centered the advertising market. But we're seeing the residual effects today. We're seeing them in the sense that it is harder to break out a news company. So even a conservative news company, which is going to have huge grassroots support, it's really challenging to do that because the advertising market is not what it was, because these people are obsessed with trying to please conservatives. The positive though, the silver lining is they ended up doing far more damage to themselves than they ever did to Breitbart. I think sometimes it works itself out and maybe the pendulum swings or they get a taste of their own medicine. But in some cases, they have really entrenched themselves so deep and many of them are sitting on multiple different committees. And so when you talk, for example, about Garm, well, Garm had Publicis, which is one of the largest communication advertising companies in the world. Well, Publicis is also partnered with NewsGuard, for example. And so while Garm goes away, Publicis is still involved with NewsGuard. Publicis represents many of the pharmaceutical companies. NewsGuard still carries Publicis as a major client and they are still censoring, NewsGuard is still censoring many additional companies across the United States and around the world. So we take NewsGuard as an example, because we both experienced terrible censorship from NewsGuard. PragerU lost one of its vendors, JW Player, because JW Player was threatened by NewsGuard. They were told that if they continue to serve us as a video player and continue to work with us, NewsGuard will be on top of them and basically say that they are providing a service to the bad guys. Right. And so we lost we lost a vendor. We've lost donors because they were threatened. We've lost some sort of credibility, even though I think that ultimately people realize that it's NewsGuard that should lose credibility. But, you know, for a while, they still have a lot of power. NewsGuard also partners with the AFD, one of the largest teachers unions in the United States of America. Right. And so they partner with with the unions. The teachers unions has over two million teachers working with NewsGuard. So when the students are pulling up PragerU in their classroom, it's being censored because NewsGuard decided that PragerU got a bad label, got a bad rating, you know, 57 out of 100, which I don't even know what that random thing means. That's pretty good. I think we're in the 40s, we just found out. Yeah, well, we're a little better than you guys at Breitbart Daily Wire and the Epoch Times. You guys are just less than just less than 50. So but still, it shows you that it's all the same people, Alex. And so while GARM is dismantled, you still have all of these tyrants who are standing together and trying to basically censor the content that we are providing, whether it's educational content from PragerU or news from Breitbart, Daily Wire, Epoch Times, people like you guys, they just move on to the next big organization that they've already built. So I don't mean to be pessimistic about it, but like I'm a mamba bear, so I'm not going to rest on my laurels. I have seen them jump from one organization to another organization, ultimately with the exact same nefarious agenda and oftentimes the same exact same people. They're they're just these leftists that believe that Americans and people around the world are too stupid to hear the truth or not worthy of hearing the truth. And so they keep giving birth to additional big tech censorship organizations that will come after us. So if you think about this GARM, and I'm going to read from Jordan's report, GARM likely violated federally antitrust laws and they have direct evidence to demonetizing certain viewpoints to limit consumer choice. That was the main point. Colluding to suppress voices and views disfavored by the leading marketers at the world's largest companies and advertising agencies is core to GARM's founding principles. GARM and its members discussed a strategy of blocking certain news outlets like Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart. We talked about it explicitly and they did it because they hated their ideology. And that was a direct quote. They hated their ideology NBS from the top executives at GARM. So they're fearless about this. This is why I give this long readout because I think it's important to note how bold they are in this. They're not trying to be subtle. They're not trying to get away with anything. They're doing this in plain sight. They detest us. They hate you and your audience. They hate me and my audience. And they believe they are completely empowered to destroy us. And we didn't understand that that means when they see this, they've lost the battle, but the war is ongoing and they think they're going to win the war and they're going to win it with things like NewsGuard, which has been a absolute nuisance. Breitbart was green on NewsGuard until September of 2020. You might know when that might be, a little bit before a pretty big event. And then you get the news cycle, Breitbart's gone to red on NewsGuard and they're so upstream with it. I was kind of cracking up the staff earlier because I was talking about how they list our merch as fake news at NewsGuard. Our store gets a red shield, a NewsGuard. This is fake merch. For people who are unfamiliar with NewsGuard, NewsGuard rates the entirety of an outlet. So basically you're green. All your content gets a green shield or you're red. All your content gets a red shield. They won't explain specifically how to get to red or green. They do this thing that where they give you a one to a hundred score. And if you hit a certain level, you're green. Or they'll send you emails, which I've found threatening emails saying, well, explain this or give us a list of all of your donors. They'll threaten you with trying to get more information out of you. But even if you give them information or change anything, there is no way to tell how you get back into the green. They just want to control you. They just want to control you. And they'll eventually, and this is what they did with us, is they moved the goalposts. So then we're outside of the goalposts because I will tell you our journalism in 2015, when we were green, I guarantee you was not as good as our journalism in 2016. When we went to red, we're improving, we get better, we get sharper, we get more efficient. We get more transparent. We get more accurate as time goes on, as we enhance our skills. And they acted like we're going backwards. So obviously it's political. Okay. But when you read their website, they are very explicit with their point. Their point is, is that companies and advertisers can use their rating system to make intelligent decisions about where they're spending their advertising dollars. That is code for, we are here specifically as a tool that you can use, go to your company and you can get them to boycott placing ads on Breitbart. And that is, and people like us, not just us, but it's people like us. That is their stated goal. And you know what they want to do next? Election guard. So they want to have a spinoff that's going to be involved in policing elections. And all of this is working together to set an agenda, which is this pro-establishment, pro-left-wing, pro-globalist agenda worldwide. That's their explicit goal. And they're fighting wars of attrition with deep, deep pockets. These are deeply funded organizations from the highest powers of the institutional left. You've seen what's gone on in this election cycle that we're in now, not to be political. So I don't need to be, but just the way that they feel like their elite can control all the decision-making for the entire country. The people do not matter to them. What the people want to see. These ads, Marissa, are placed based off of their browsing history, based off of their own interests. That's how you get ads on places like Breitbart. It's most people don't just, you know, it's not Toyota just says, we got a new Prius coming out. Let's give Breitbart a million dollars. That's not how it works. It is you, you get targeted based on the stuff that you're already looking at, based on your own search history, based off of your own web traffic. That's where the ads come in. The advertisers were very comfortable with this until recently because they knew that the ads were getting placed on high traffic, high propensity consumers. Those consumers who were likely to buy their products, that's who was seeing their ads. That was fine until these groups came and said, no, it's not fine because sometimes your ads are on Breitbart. Like what's wrong with Breitbart? Well, they're misinformation. They're misogynistic. Just like you guys were, were an anti-Semitic company run by Jews and pro-Israel. It's just all that stuff. So what is it that they're doing? They're trying to kill us with warfare. This is economic warfare and they will not rest just because we won this round. So I share your pessimism overall, but I did want to celebrate today. Today we could be happy. Today we do celebrate. I do think it would be worth it to mention who is behind NewsGuard. You know, $750,000 was given to NewsGuard from the Department of Defense. Yes. Right. And so we are paying NewsGuard to censor us. And I want to mention one more really crazy thing. PragerU has partnerships with close to seven states in our education initiative that we're providing to different states around America. We have boards of education that have approved PragerU content to be in states. Yet the AFT and NewsGuard that get to come in and say, no, wait a second, let's censor PragerU kids' content in schools' browsers. This is how they're going around the will of the people and around the will of even departments of education in different states. How come the AFT, the teachers unions get to come in with NewsGuard and say, even though the population has chosen to use PragerU in schools, we are actually going to make sure that it gets censorship. There is no vote. People don't even know about it. It just gets blocked in there. And so when we talk about, yes, there are moments to celebrate. Alex, you know what we're celebrating? We're celebrating that Elon Musk and Jim Jordan are willing to fight back even though these places are behemoth. That I'm willing to celebrate. What we can't do is rest on our laurels and assume that this problem is gone and just go back to bed and think that we've won enough to have our freedom of speech here in America. And one thing that's interesting with Garmin, I think this was the crux of their pushback, which didn't last very long. Once Musk got in, it seemed like this fizzle, but their pushback in Jordan was they weren't directly calling for censorship or whatever boycotts. But what they were doing is they were encouraging these companies to use NewsGuard and GDI and other entities that are openly encouraging boycotts, which that wasn't, it shouldn't fly. They thought it would fly. But this is what they do is they will direct the schools, will say the teachers unions or the school boards, whatever it is, they'll say, well, we're just going to rely on this non-biased entity, NewsGuard, who's guarding the news because they don't know. Unless they consume your content or my content, they don't know what NewsGuard's all about. NewsGuard is about protecting the status quo for the globalist elite who run Washington, DC. That's what it's about. They don't want any threats to that group of people, that cabal of people. And it's mostly left-wing people. It's not just left-wing people. It's the deep state crowd. It's the people who might at one time have considered themselves conservative, but are really for just expanding governments and expanding bureaucracies. Those types of people are the commonplace on NewsGuard's board. And the people who like their power more than they like your freedom. And I think this is a crucial point of who runs NewsGuard. And that's who they're really against, people who are threats to their power structures. And you're a huge threat to their power structures because they've controlled the school system. And you're the first group that's really said, actually, we're not happy about it, but we're going to do something. We're not just going to complain. We're not going to write a mean comment on the internet or call into a talk radio show. I love everyone who does that. We're actually going to start our alternatives. We're going to make them so legit that they're going to be available to students in your schools. They can't handle that. This is an affront to everything they stand for, everything they've been working for. So of course, you're going to have a huge X on your back. And that's what we're dealing with. And they will move on to the next tactic for sure. They probably already have. Speaking of that, the other victory, I guess, at least some sort of punch against Google this past week was the antitrust lawsuit, which they lost. So people have been asking, how does that impact Impact Daily? Why are PragerU and other organizations like ours who have been censored? What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. My take is this one probably is not going to help me too much, but I love the idea that people are pushing back in any way they can. Google is a huge, huge behemoth. It was really interesting. I was talking to President Trump earlier this week, and all of the Silicon Valley tech giants seem to be kissing the ring a little bit to him. I don't think they've grown far enough, but almost all of them are coming up to him after the assassination attempt. And the big shots are at least saying, hey, we saw what you did. That was pretty cool, this thing. The one that he said that he's not getting any, he doesn't talk to at all is Google. And that doesn't surprise me at all because he really is, they feel like they're godlike, that they control so much because they're not just dominant in search. They're not just dominant in other sorts of computing, but our Pentagon's dependent on them in a lot of ways. There's a revolving door between Google executives and the top people in the State Department and the Defense Department in this country. You got people like Eric Schmidt from Google who is handpicking the Joe Biden science initiatives, whatever he's doing. The Google hotshots have so much power, not just in business, but online advertising, cloud computing, it does not stop with them. And they feel like they can do anything they want. And they feel like they are more powerful than I can guarantee you any country on earth, other than maybe United States of America. And that's something not to be underestimated. So anytime they take a loss, I'm all in on it. But I mean, that is just a minor blip or a hiccup for them. That is, remember, they vowed never to someone Trump type person after 2016 win again. They said that. They said that they were going to make populism, nationalism, a blip or a hiccup in history. So this is not a political statement. This is just something they said. We reported it to Breitbart News at the time. We had the scoop on this one. That is something that everyone should remember at this point of the year. The case declared that they are a monopoly. That was what it was about when people are asking us, does it impact us? Not so much because our issue is more whether Google still gets to hold on to Section 230 of the CDA, which basically allows them to eat the cake and have it, too. It allows them to censor content they don't like, but then not be blamed for content that gets uploaded onto either Google or YouTube that that could be harmful to people. Right. And so they're both a publisher and a public forum at the same time. So them being a monopoly still allows them to reign over the Internet and make those decisions of picking the winners and the losers. Right. Yeah. And one thing that I don't think this suit touches on, but I hope maybe one day this will be empower people to start looking into this. They don't allow for Breitbart content basically to show up in their search results. There's another one that I've written about extensively. People can find it online. But in 2020, in May of 2020, they cut off all search traffic to Breitbart unless you use the word Breitbart in the search. So if we do an exclusive interview, let's say, with a major player, with you, for example, and then Media Matters writes it up as look at all the crazy stuff Alex and Marissa were talking about, that's going to show up higher in a Google search than the Breitbart original version of the story. If our Breitbart version shows up at all. That means that we can, if the media gets something wrong, we fact check it accurately. Okay. It's not going to show up in Google. And if it did, it'd get a news guard red shield. That's what we're up against. Thanks to Google. I mean, this is what they do is that they have tried to stack the deck in certain ways politically. And it's about values. And just don't think that the algorithm is just an algorithm. The algorithm is written by people. And these people do not want us to succeed. And no one's really looked under the hood because Google is, again, they're essentially a part of the US government in a lot of ways. So the government would have to investigate themselves. The person who is in charge of this stuff really in California for a long time is Kamala Harris. She's the one who was essentially supposed to be responsible for looking after Google, looking after Facebook as the attorney general of the state. In the meantime, they're stroking huge checks in her direction. And every California governor, attorney general, it's going to be the same thing. Google is one of the biggest lobbyists in all of Washington, D.C. They are handing out money. Do you think they're handing it out to people with our politics? Of course not. They're handing it out to people who they know they can buy off with another hot gig. Tony Blinken, his companies that he does in between his gigs in the government or secretary of state, he basically has a company called WestExec where he matches contracts, government contracts with big tech entities, specifically Google, one of his biggest clients. That's what he does, is he's a go-between between government money and big tech jobs. That's what they do. Do you think that his state department is going to be hostile to anything Google is doing? Of course not. This is the entirety of Washington, D.C. It's the most disappointing thing going on in this country, in my opinion, other than, I guess maybe the trans stuff is pretty bad. But aside from the transing of the kids, this has got to be the worst thing. And the open borders. I thought our border was closed. I heard this recently, the wall's going up and everything's good now. There's executive order that went down. So that's solved. So it's just, yeah, that's good. Just all happened. No, this is in terms of the open border, though. I didn't mean to throw you off. No, no, no, no, no. The open border's always been this way. I'm Californian. So it's been, for me, I was kind of shocked when people started taking notice 10 years ago. Where have you been? It's always been like this. But in terms of pure disappointments. So when I went to Washington, I lived there for eight years. That understanding that there really is a complex of people who want to see the expansion of the war industry. They want to see the expansion of bureaucracies because it helps them get jobs. Even though they don't necessarily want us all to go to war and die. That's not what they're thinking about. But they're thinking about how can we grow the Defense Department? How can we grow the State Department? How can we grow the Judicial Branch? Everything that they can do in order to create jobs for themselves, create soft places to land, access to public-private partnership funds. That's what's really disappointing. And that's where a lot of our money is going. And it's not making the country better. It's making it so that there's a bigger permanent political class running our country. And that is exactly what entities like you guys and entities like mine are standing against. We want the people to have a voice. We want the people enfranchised. We want the people to be able to control what's going on in their schools. The parents, not the administrators. You want the parents to be involved in education. Right. The domestic terrorists. Yeah, right. And that's how we're treated. Right. Well, ultimately, I agree with you. It all comes down to one thing that really makes America unique. And that is freedom of speech. Yes. And that they know that. And that is why that's what they're doing. If they control our speech, if they censor information, if they censor education and news, they control everything. They control the borders. They control education. They control the military. They control everything because we don't get to hear about what they're doing. When Rob Rakowitz from GARM is talking about the extreme global interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, I take it to mean exactly what you're talking about. He doesn't like the First Amendment. And that's why when you talk about what are American values, the First Amendment's got to be so high up on the list. What are we trying to conserve as conservatives? First Amendment's got to be high on the list because that is what gives us a fighting chance against all of those different groups, well-funded, well-lawyered groups that want to see us destroyed. Our only hope is with the First Amendment and our ability to speak freely. And thank God that there's a few people out there who see that. Well, we're grateful to partner with you. Thanks for everything you're doing. And I hope people got a good education about what is happening this week. It's been a big one. It's been a big one. There's so many these days, but that's really exciting. And I hope everyone goes to Breitbart, downloads our app, and they can stay up to date with all the latest. Yeah. All right. I appreciate you, Alex. Thanks. Thank you, Marissa.