(ANP: We were recently sent this 111-page report that was just submitted to Congress with the request; please make sure that EVERY MEMBER of Congress sees it. So please, by all means, contact your Congressional Members if you find this report as alarming as we do. You can contact your Congress members here and here. The entire report is embedded at the bottom of this story.) 

Google And Facebook Have A Psychological Trick To Make You Do Things You Wouldn’t Believe You Might Do 

Most of the U.S. Senators and government agency heads own stock in, get their political campaigns financed by and party with, the owners and executives of the Silicon Valley big tech companies. 

That is why those public officials fail to halt the mass societal abuses of those companies. Above all others, the California politicians are in bed with the same criminals they are supposed to regulate. 

While politicians shrug off any attempt to bring the oligarchs into line, they provide lip-service, window-dressing pretend actions that have impressive titles but zero bite. 

The authors of this report were in private meetings with the investors and founders of the Silicon Valley “Big Five”, at the inception of their companies, and hereby testify that those owners planned, with malicious intent, the use of their business licenses for the purpose of manipulating, harming and restricting the public interest, and DEMOCRACY, for profiteering purposes. 

Big tech’s “green-washing”, false-savior, “we-are-your-mother” fake “do-gooder” facade is a sham to sucker everyone. 

They hide behind a curtain of false altruism and do the darkest deeds any industry can undertake behind that contrived screen. 

One of Google , Youtube and Facebook’s most insidious technologies can even get you to engage in riots, murders and other crimes, even though you might, otherwise, never do those things. Here is how that technology works: 

Since the early 20th century, the name of the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov has been associated with the idea of brainwashing. Pavlov’s experiments, in which he trained dogs to salivate in response to a signal such as a bell, showed that the mind could be conditioned to react automatically to stimuli. But he looked forward to a time when science could manipulate the brain directly. In a passage eerily accurate in describing today’s neural imaging, he wrote: “If we could look through the skull into the brain of a consciously thinking person…then we should see playing over the cerebral surface a bright spot with fantastic, waving borders, constantly fluctuating in size and form, and surrounded by a darkness, more or less deep, covering the rest of the hemispheres.” 

We still don’t have a precise topography of the brain in terms of specific thoughts or feelings. It’s hard to imagine where one would begin if one wanted to surgically force someone to reveal a particular secret, or to persuade him or her to vote for a certain candidate. But since Pavlov’s time, science has moved much closer to enabling direct physical control of the brain. In this century, neuroscientists’ insights into memory, cognition, pleasure and pain may make coercive “mind control” a reality.  

The psychologist James Olds (1922-76), one of the founders of modern neuroscience, conducted an experiment at McGill University in 1953 in which he implanted electrodes deep in the brains of rats and started observing their responses to electrical stimulation at various sites. His key observation resulted from an accident: He missed the desired anatomical site slightly on one particular rat. After recovering from surgery, the animal was placed in a special chamber. Every time it went to a corner of the chamber, it received a small electrical stimulus to the brain, with each corner stimulating a different site. The rat kept returning to one specific corner, even skipping eating to hang out there and get the brain stimulation.

Ivan Pavlov watching an experiment with a dog in 1934. Photo: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group/Getty Images 

Olds inferred that there was something pleasurable about receiving a shock at that site in the brain. Next he started training the rat to go to different parts of the box or to turn right or left before it could receive the desired electrical stimulation. Using this technique, Olds could elicit complex behaviors easily; Pavlov would have been envious about this shortcut to behavioral conditioning. Olds observed that “Left to itself in the apparatus, the animal…stimulated its own brain regularly,” up to 5,000 times an hour. 

The mind-control possibilities for this intervention sounded almost limitless, but would it work on people? Psychiatrist Robert Heath (1915-99), of Tulane University, performed studies with human patients, including one code-named B-7, a 28-year-old man with severe narcolepsy. Heath implanted a series of electrodes in various areas of his brain and asked the patient what he felt after each area was 4 stimulated. One area was so aversive that the patient intentionally broke the stimulus button so that he would never have to experience that sensation again. 

However, the feelings evoked by stimulating a different site were intensely pleasurable. The patient learned that he could block an incipient narcoleptic attack by self-stimulating; he was able to control his symptoms so well that for the first time he was able to get a job. On the rare occasion that he fell asleep too rapidly to press the button, his friends knew that they could promptly wake him up by pressing it for him. 

Neurosurgical techniques have continued to evolve to be less invasive, less risky and applied to very specific areas of the brain. 

At one point the CIA approached Heath, asking if he would work with the agency to study the brain’s pleasure and pain system. He spurned the invitation, he told a New York Times reporter in 1977: “If I had wanted to be a spy, I would have been a spy. I wanted to be a doctor and practice medicine.” This kind of work, most of which was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, has largely been shut down because of ethical concerns. 

However, the underlying neurosurgical techniques have continued to evolve. Fifty years after Heath’s studies, procedures are less invasive, less risky and can be applied to very specific areas of the brain. Implanted deep-brain stimulators (DBS) are used by thousands of people with Parkinson’s disease to help control their muscle movements, as well as for other conditions such as pain and epilepsy. There is ongoing interest in using such interventions on different sites in the brain to treat patients with psychiatric disorders, particularly patients with treatment-resistant depression. 

Deep-brain stimulation requires painstaking surgery and expensive equipment, suitable for an individual but hardly appropriate for group interventions. Is there a way of stimulating a group of people without implants? In her 1996 book “Cults in Our Midst,” Psychologist Margaret Singer described love bombing,” an indoctrination technique used by some cults in which recruits are given so much flattery and adulation that they feel welcome and safe. 

The neuroendocrine equivalent involves a hormone called oxytocin that is manufactured deep in the brain. People release oxytocin when they are bonding with another; it is sometimes nicknamed the feelgood hormone. Early research found that it is increased during breast-feeding and during sexual intimacy. Subsequent research showed that oxytocin is also produced in other situations of closeness— prayer, team sports, even when dog owners interact with their pets. 

But there is a darker side to oxytocin. Experiments have found that it can stoke trust and cooperation within a group at the expense of distrust of people outside the group. Currently, the most effective way of administering oxytocin is through a nasal spray, but if it were possible to administer it orally or via aerosol, it could conceivably be used in group settings to increase attachment and thereby recruit new potential members of a cult or party. People might willingly join a group or adopt a new belief if it allowed them to receive pleasurable stimulation—after all, addicts aren’t particularly squeamish about what they need to do to obtain their drugs.

On the other side of the coin, people might repudiate their old beliefs or identities to turn off painful stimulation, the way patient B-7 broke his stimulus button. When the dystopian movie “A Clockwork Orange” was released in 1971, audiences were stunned by its portrayal of the power of aversive conditioning. The advance of neuroscience means that such techniques are no longer just fantasies. So far they have been kept in check only by government regulation and medical professionals’ sense of ethics. But governments are always seeking new weaponry, and history suggests that there will always be some researchers who close their eyes to the implications of their work or justify it as a way to protect society from looming threats. Their self-restraint may not always protect us from the dark potential of Google and Facebook’s scientific coercion. This report goes deeper into those contrived and manually steered tech manipulations operated by Big Tech’s executives. 

Collusion Exposed That Manipulates Your News And Information For Personal Gain 

Google is manipulating your internet searches, your elections, your perceptions of the news, your democracy, your ideologies and your school curriculum's. Google and their cartel (including FACEBOOK, NETFLIX, LINKEDIN, YOUTUBE, et al ) collude to manipulate social dynamics. 

White House executives, Federal Agency Executives and U.S. Senators including Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, John Podesta, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid own, control and finance “The Deep State” because they own, and their families, own the stock in the companies comprising The Deep State, they tell those companies what to do, they fund those companies and they social communicate with each other through covert channels, they engage sexually with each other and they exchange stock market tips and strategies, and that forensic accounting shows that the politicians and the corrupt companies are all the same organization. This, in part, proves that the “Deep State” is “State Sponsored”. 

Google, and The Deep State’s, socialistic, anti-Christian bias is invisibly reflected in the suppression of ideological content from appearing in some search results. 

In shocking research that has spanned the past 6 ½ years, Dr. Robert Epstein – former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today and now Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology – has found that by controlling search results, Google possesses unprecedented power to sway the thinking of undecided voters during an election campaign. 

How is it done? 

Google can manipulate its search engine algorithm to display one-sided search results that decidedly favor one political candidate over another. 

Dr. Epstein gave a grim prediction in recent congressional testimony… 

He said that “democracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.” 

Dr. Epstein is a registered Democrat. He supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. He has no hidden agenda … and no axe to grind for President Trump. 

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, he captured and analyzed “more than 13,000 electionrelated searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election…” 

During the 2018 midterm election cycle, Dr. Epstein captured 47,000 election-related searches – plus nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results were linked. 

The results of his scientific analysis in both cases were disturbing… 

The Google search results in 2016 – which account for over 92% of worldwide internet searches – were significantly biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states. 

In 2018, the first-page search results heavily favored web sites and articles favoring Democrat candidates rather than being evenly split between Democrat and Republican candidates. 

Very few people who do spontaneous searches ever scroll past the first page of search results. And Google knows this. 

Dr. Epstein has conducted dozens of controlled experiments in the U.S. and other countries to precisely measure – through before-and-after questionnaires – how opinions and votes shift among undecided voters when search results strongly favor one candidate over another. 

He calls this shift “SEME” – Search Engine Manipulation Shift. “SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences,” Dr. Epstein said in his congressional testimony, “and it is especially dangerous because it is invisible to people – ‘subliminal’ in effect… Bottom line: biased search results can easily produce shifts in the opinions and voting preference of undecided voters by 20% or more – up to 80% in some demographic groups.” 

I can tell you, this is enough voters to change the results of any election. 

Dr. Epstein calculated that Search Engine Manipulation Shift likely persuaded at least 2.6 million undecided voters to cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016 …and perhaps as many as 10.4 million. 

In the 2018 midterm elections, Epstein’s evidence suggests that as many as 78.2 million votes may have been shifted to Democrat candidates due to Search Engine Manipulation Shift. 

These effects are far more meddlesome and interfering than fake news stories or ads placed by Russians on social media… 

While these acts of interference are troubling and unacceptable, they don’t shift very many votes because they are competitive and visible. Search Engine Manipulation Shift – on the other hand – is invisible and non-competitive. 

Dr. Epstein explains: “SEME is an example of an ‘ephemeral experience,’ and that’s a phrase you’ll find in internal emails that have leaked from Google recently. A growing body of evidence suggests that Google employees deliberately engineer ephemeral experiences to change people’s thinking… My recent research demonstrates that Google’s ‘autocomplete’ search suggestions can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split without people’s awareness.” 

As expected, Google, Hillary Clinton, and progressive media outlets have all disputed Dr. Epstein’s research and his claims… 

They all say in unison that this 2016 study of election-related search results has been “debunked,” and that Epstein’s results aren’t valid because he made “weird methodological choices” in an earlier 2010 study. 

But they haven’t debunked his methodology or his results at all… 

They’re just saying this to try to discredit him and convince people to not take his work seriously. They haven’t refuted him either by conducting their own comparable studies … or by addressing his explanations of his methodology. 

Incidentally, the number one Hillary Clinton financial supporter in the 2016 election was Alphabet Inc. – the parent company of Google. You can read Dr. Epstein’s testimony and study the methodology of his experiments here.

Please see the full report via PDF document below.

All donations are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.

Thank you and God Bless. Susan and Stefan.

PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.

One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:



Or https://www.paypal.me/AllNewsPipeLine

Donate monthly from $1 up by becoming an ANP Patron.



Donate Via Snail Mail

Checks or money orders made payable to Stefan Stanford or Susan Duclos can be sent to:

P.O. Box 575McHenry, MD. 21541