History Podcasts

Campaign Tech

Campaign Tech


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


The Harvard Campaign

Launched in 2013, The Harvard Campaign saw unprecedented participation with more than 153,000 households from 173 countries contributing more than 633,000 gifts by its conclusion in the spring of 2018. The first fundraising effort to be inclusive of all Harvard's Schools, The Harvard Campaign's more than 1,400 volunteers served on committees across all Schools, with over half of those participating on committees at more than one School or unit.

"The support you've given to Harvard has allowed us to meet the central challenge we laid out when we publicly launched the Campaign: to seize an impatient future. This campaign has helped shape and secure Harvard's future by investing in both the enduring and emerging—sustaining what we have always been, and indeed must always be, as well as challenging us and enabling us in who we must become."
—President Emerita Drew Gilpin Faust

The Campaign supported and expanded critical financial aid and funded 142 endowed professorships University-wide, supporting faculty as they develop the ideas that matter and the solutions that are key to addressing society's most immediate challenges. The Campaign also enriched the arts and humanities inspired innovations in education, business, design, and government and fostered interdisciplinary and cross-cultural exchange. Generous gifts expanded and reimagined the University's physical campus, including funding new and renovated facilities for teaching and research that encourage discovery and academic growth across the fields of study.

After the Campaign's conclusion, Harvard President Larry Bacow JD '76, MPP '76, PhD '78 said, "As new challenges and opportunities arise in higher education and beyond, Harvard is well-positioned to respond and adapt thanks to the generosity of our alumni and friends. It is equally important that we lead by example as we seek to make the world a better place through our teaching and scholarship. We are enormously grateful to those who have supported us in this effort."


How memes got weaponized: A short history

Memes come off as a joke, but some people are starting to see them as the serious threat they are.

In October 2016, a friend of mine learned that one of his wedding photos had made its way into a post on a right-wing message board. The picture had been doctored to look like an ad for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and appeared to endorse the idea of drafting women into the military. A mutual friend of ours found the image first and sent him a message: “Ummm, I saw this on Reddit, did you make this?”

This was the first my friend had heard of it. He hadn’t agreed to the use of his image, which was apparently taken from his online wedding album. But he also felt there was nothing he could do to stop it.

This story was part of our November 2019 issue

So rather than poke the trolls by complaining, he ignored it and went on with his life. Most of his friends had a laugh at the fake ad, but I saw a huge problem. As a researcher of media manipulation and disinformation, I understood right away that my friend had become cannon fodder in a “meme war”—the use of slogans, images, and video on social media for political purposes, often employing disinformation and half-truths.

While today we tend to think of memes as funny images online, Richard Dawkins coined the term back in 1976 in his book The Selfish Gene, where he described how culture is transmitted through generations. In his definition, memes are “units of culture” spread through the diffusion of ideas. Memes are particularly salient online because the internet crystallizes them as artifacts of communication and accelerates their distribution through subcultures.

Importantly, as memes are shared they shed the context of their creation, along with their authorship. Unmoored from the trappings of an author’s reputation or intention, they become the collective property of the culture. As such, memes take on a life of their own, and no one has to answer for transgressive or hateful ideas.

And while a lot of people think of memes as harmless entertainment—funny, snarky comments on current events—we’re far beyond that now. Meme wars are a consistent feature of our politics, and they’re not just being used by internet trolls or some bored kids in the basement, but by governments, political candidates, and activists across the globe. Russia used memes and other social-media tricks to influence the US election in 2016, using a troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency to seed pro-Trump and anti-Clinton content across various online platforms. Both sides in territorial conflicts like those between Hong Kong and China, Gaza and Israel, and India and Pakistan are using memes and viral propaganda to sway both local and international sentiment.

In 2007, for example, as he was campaigning for president, John McCain jokingly started to sing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ popular song “Barbara Ann.” McCain, an Iran hawk, was talking up a possible war using the well-worn tactic of humor and familiarity: easy to dismiss as a joke, yet serving as a scary reminder of US military power. But it became a political liability for him. The slogan was picked up by civilian meme-makers, who spread and adapted it until it went viral. His opponent, Barack Obama, in essence got unpaid support from people who were better at creating persuasive content than his own campaign staff.

The viral success of memes has led governments to try imitating the genre in their propaganda. These campaigns are often aimed at the young, like the US Army’s social-media-focused “Warriors Wanted” program, or the British Army campaign that borrows the visual language of century-old recruiting posters to make fun of millennial stereotypes. These drew ridicule when they were launched earlier this year, but they did boost recruitment.

However, using memes this way misses the point entirely. As mentioned, great memes are authorless. They move about the culture without attribution.

Much more authentic military meme campaigns are coming from soldiers themselves, such as the memes referencing the bungling idiot known simply as “Carl.” US service members and veterans run websites that host jokes and images detailing the reality of military life. Yet these serve a purpose not so different from that of official propaganda. They often feature heavily armed soldiers and serve to highlight, even in jokes, the tremendous destructive capacity of the armed forces. In turn, such memes have been turned into commercial marketing campaigns, such as one for the veteran-owned clothing company Valhalla Wear.

My friend’s picture was appropriated for a memetic operation that aimed to associate Hillary Clinton with a revival of the draft.

Recognizing this power of memes generated by ordinary people to serve a state’s propaganda narrative, in 2005 a Marine Corps major named Michael Prosser wrote a master’s thesis titled “Memetics—A Growth Industry in US Military Operations,” in which he called for the formation of a meme warfare center that would enroll people to produce and share memes as a way of swaying public opinion.

Prosser’s idea didn’t come to fruition, but the US government did come to recognize memetics as a threat. Beginning in 2011, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered $42 million in grants for research into what it called “social media in strategic communications,” with the hope that the government could detect “purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation” and create countermessaging to fight it.

Yet that research didn’t prepare DARPA for Russia’s 2016 disinformation campaign. Its extent was uncovered only by reporters and academics. That revealed a fatal flaw in national security: foreign agents are nearly impossible to detect when they hide within the civilian population. Unless social-media companies cooperate with the state to monitor attacks, this tactic remains in play.

My friend’s wedding photo provides a good illustration of how something as seemingly trivial as a meme can be turned into a powerful political weapon. In 2016, a Reddit message board, r/The_Donald, was a well-known meme factory for all things Trump. Imagery and sloganeering were beta-tested and refined there before being deployed by swarms of accounts on social-media platforms. Famous viral slogans launched from The_Donald included those having to do with “Pizzagate” and the Seth Rich murder conspiracy.

My friend’s picture was appropriated for a memetic warfare operation called #DraftMyWife or #DraftOurDaughters, which aimed to falsely associate Hillary Clinton with a revival of the draft. The strategy was simple: the perpetrators took imagery from Clinton’s official digital campaign materials, as well as pictures online like my friend’s, and altered them to make it look as if Clinton would draft women into the military if she became president. Someone who saw one of these fake campaign ads and then searched online would find that Clinton had in fact spoken in June 2016 in support of a bill that included a provision making women eligible to be drafted—but only in case of a national emergency. The bill was passed, but it was later changed to remove that requirement. This is what made #DraftMyWife sneaky—it was based on a kernel of truth.


An Unfiltered Oral History of the Marlboro Man

That was the original advertising slogan for Marlboro cigarettes when they first hit the market in the 1920s . Decades before the rugged Marlboro Man image was born, Marlboros were a cigarette aimed at women, with their ad campaign focused around high-class ladies elegantly smoking, alongside assurances that Marlboros wouldn’t interfere with a woman’s lipstick. Later on, as cigarettes began to be sold with filters — Marlboros included — filtered cigarettes were also seen as feminine, which further caused men to shy away from the brand.

But after faltering for decades as a lady’s smoke — including trying gimmicks like dying the tips of their cigarettes red — in the 1950s, the Philip Morris Company (which owns Marlboro) decided to direct their product toward men. To overcome the idea that a filter was for a woman, the Leo Burnett advertising agency decided to attack that stigma head-on, creating a campaign where the manliest of manly dudes would be depicted smoking a Marlboro.

The result would be nothing short of extraordinary, catapulting Marlboros from less than one percent of the cigarette market to the fourth-biggest brand in under a year, eventually becoming the top cigarette brand in the world.

The ad campaign lasted nearly half a century in the U.S. and would still exist overseas for years after its American retirement in 1999. Its legacy, however, is muddled: Widely regarded as the most successful advertising campaign of all time, the beautiful imagery depicted in the ads is inextricably linked to the product it sold, which killed countless people, including several of the men who would don the iconic moniker of the Marlboro Man.

The Birth of the Marlboro Man

While the Marlboro Man ads would change little in the nearly 50 years they spent in the American landscape, the early years of the campaign didn’t focus exclusively on cowboys, opting for a variety of masculine figures smoking its cigarettes. But something about the cowboy would resonate and in time, the cowboy would become the sole image used to promote Marlboros.

Barry Vacker, professor of media studies and production at Temple University and author of The Marlboro Man as a Twentieth Century David: The original Marlboro man was this guy holding a cigarette, wearing a cowboy hat, and he’s looking not directly at the camera, but just a little bit off. That’s the very first one — they had a couple of those, and then they had this series of guys with tattoos on their hands to imply they were in the military.

Then they migrated to various images of masculinity, including various sports figures, like players for the Green Bay Packers and stuff like that. But in the early 1960s, they switched back to the cowboy and that’s when it really hit home. The ads pretty much stayed the same all the way after that.

Scott Ellsworth, former historian at the Smithsonian Institution and co-author of the Marlboro Oral History and Documentation Project: Eventually, someone at Leo Burnett noticed that whenever they showed a cowboy, there was a little rise in sales. So they decided to drop all the other tattoo guys and just go with the cowboy thing. That, of course, fit American society in the 1950s and 1960s, where Westerns were all over television with shows like Gunsmoke and Maverick and American kids were playing cowboys and Indians.

Jim Carrier, journalist and author of the Denver Post series “In Search of the Marlboro Man” (and author of an upcoming book by the same title): They eventually found a set of models that were beautiful-looking men. They had top photographers and top cinematographers, and they created this powerful imagery that appealed to something that ran deeper in the American consciousness.

Who Was the Marlboro Man?

Thanks to the disappearance of cigarette advertising, the Marlboro Man is now a symbol of yesteryear, seeming almost as dated as the cowboys of the Old West themselves. For the latter half of the 20th century, however, the Marlboro Man wasn’t just a product mascot (though he certainly was that, too) — thanks to the appropriation of the cowboy image, the Marlboro Man became something of an American hero.

Brad Johnson, ranch broker, actor and former Marlboro Man: The Marlboro Man was a fixture in American culture. For the longest time he was on the same level as 007.

Ellsworth: Class-wise, the Marlboro Man is kind of like a foreman — he’s the head of the cowboys who’s directing them to do the work. He’s not the landowner. He’s obviously a respected guy — the quiet man. He’s the guy who knows how to do things and gets them done without any fuss. He’s certainly a heroic figure. He may work for somebody else, but he’s his own man and he’s in control of his life, an independent person. The ads also harken back to a more pastoral time, where everyone isn’t punching time clocks and lining up to catch the M train with their gray flannel suits and going to work in an office.

Vacker: They were trying to create the ideal man, and there’s no bigger icon in America than the cowboy. There’s multiple meanings behind the cowboy: There’s the cowboy who’s a redneck, you know, the beer-drinking, pickup-driving urban cowboy of John Travolta fame, but then there’s the mythic cowboy, that masculine icon. He’s the lone individualist riding the range — he’s at one with nature as he’s wrangling the cows. He truly spoke to that American idea of rugged individualism.

The Marlboro Man would also come to mean different things to different people, and without ever really changing, he would be a reflection — or a repudiation — of the times. He emerged during the height of the Cold War as we’re battling the communists, who we Americans viewed at these monolithic “mass men” who all think and act the same. Here in America, there’s this rugged hero going up on billboards, which perfectly symbolized capitalist masculine Western imagery. This stoic, self-reliant figure spoke to how Americans viewed themselves and contrasted with our view of communism.

Then, in the 1960s, with all of the assassinations and the war in Vietnam, the Marlboro Man — without really changing — takes on another meaning. He suddenly represents tradition, civility and calm. When the tobacco companies agreed to stop airing commercials on television in 1970, the Marlboro Man still remained that stoic figure in magazines and billboards, not bothered by the change. In the 1980s, the Marlboro Man again takes on new meaning as the tough American, which was also in our political atmosphere with Ronald Reagan in the White House — Reagan had even starred in Westerns and had also advertised cigarettes at one time ( though not Marlboros ).

The Marlboro man was something of a chameleon, in that he took on multiple meanings and was always adaptable to the times — which, more than anything else, speaks to the durability of the cowboy in American culture.

The Story of a Marlboro Man

In the early days of the Marlboro Man campaign, the ad agency often turned to professional models and actors for its images, like the “original” Marlboro Man William Thourlby . But over time, the campaign decided to get more and more authentic, especially as more horse riding was utilized in its imagery. Because of this, Leo Burnett stopped seeking out models and decided to cast actual cowboys of the West by visiting rodeos and the like. One such find was Brad Johnson, who became a Marlboro Man in 1987.

Johnson: I was 21 or 22, and I was rodeoing for a living, shoeing horses for cash. I was in Reno, Nevada, at a rodeo, and I’d entered into the steer-wrestling competition. A guy came up to me and said, “We’d like to put you on tape and take some pictures of you.” Honestly, I thought the guy was flirting with me at first, but then I spoke to some other guys there who had been approached too. They said it was legit and that Marlboro had set up there and was looking for guys. It wasn’t the type of outfit where they’d go to a casting director and ask them to find some handsome guys — not at all. They’d go to a rodeo or a livestock auction and try to find guys who had the right look, but were also experienced cowboys.

Once I realized it was all legit, I agreed to have my picture taken. After that, they flew me to Wichita Falls to a little a hat maker there — they were very specific about how the hat looked. So I went there and they fitted me for a hat, then they flew me to Jackson Hole, Wyoming . That was my first shoot, which was kind of a test shoot with a famous photographer named Co Rentmeester . They wanted to see how I could ride and how I could handle a horse, which was easy because I was already doing that for a living. They took a bunch of action shots, and after that, they flew me to Carmel, California for portraits.

Next, I did a whole bunch of ads over the next four years at some pretty amazing locations. We were still doing commercials long after they were banned in the U.S., and we did an amazing shoot at Boar’s Tusk , by Rock Springs, Wyoming with Tony Scott — he directed Top Gun — and it was a big production. It was like a movie set! There were five of us Marlboro Men in front, about 50 to 60 horses and about 300 to 350 head of cattle behind them, and the chuck wagon was in the front . It was like a big pyramid it was massive.

For another job, I remember one time we shot up at Targhee , that’s the Idaho side of the Grand Teton mountains. I was leading this horse on a ridge, and for the commercial, it had to look like this horse got spooked by a mountain lion. But we couldn’t put both animals in the same shot because it would be total chaos. They needed something to scare the horse, so they laid this tape measure on the ground, and when the horse approached, they zipped back the tape measure. That horse flipped out every time we did it, it worked perfectly.

I never did smoke — most of the Marlboro Men did, but not me. I lit a million of them, though. They taught me how to light it for the commercials and how to cup my hands perfectly. It was very specific. They had a girl with a big silver turkey platter with a pile of cigarettes. You’d put the filter on one of the teeth next to your front teeth, then clench your teeth for the strong-jawed look and look off into the distance, real stoic-ly, you know? The cigarette would burn for a second, and they’d shoot it and you’d put it out and do it again, over and over and over again.

We’d often shoot together, the other Marlboro Men and I. There was mutual respect, as all of us were the real deal and that was a must. I know they tried to use models sometimes, but for the horse stuff, there’s no faking that, so we all got along.

It was a great job and had they given me a contract, I’d still be with them. It was great pay, especially for a guy like me who was just scraping by, then suddenly bang — I was making $3,800 a day on a shoot. It was incredible. I also started doing other ads after that as well — I remember one time I had a Marlboro ad on a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, and two blocks down, I had a Calvin Klein billboard. It was crazy.

I asked them if they’d give me a contract, but it never panned out, so I didn’t want to turn down easy work. I mean, someone wants to pay you 5,000 bucks to stand there and look dumb, who wouldn’t do it? I wasn’t about to say no and go back to shoeing horses.

Eventually, I ended up having too much recognizability for what they were going for, so they stopped using me. I don’t blame them — they were using real cowboys, and they wanted to keep things authentic. So I get it. It was a great job, though, and they were great people. It was just a lot of fun.

I want to say, however, I’m not the Marlboro Man. I was one of the Marlboro Men, sure, but Darrell Winfield is the Marlboro Man — always was.

Darrell Winfield

While dozens of men would be called “The Marlboro Man” over the years, there was one man who stands above the rest, and that’s Darrell Winfield. Winfield worked for Marlboro from 1968 to 1989, and even Marlboro regarded him as “ really the Marlboro man .” The ruggedly handsome, mustachioed rancher’s face would become world famous over his decades on the job, and while he certainly made more money on billboards than he ever did on a ranch, there was no question that Winfield was the real deal.

The Telegraph, “Darrell Winfield, Marlboro Man — Obituary,” excerpt: In 1968 [Leo] Burnett found Winfield, who was working as a ranch hand in Wyoming and were immediately struck by his authenticity. “I had seen cowboys,” recalled the agency’s creative director, “but I had never seen one that just really, like, he sort of scared the hell out of me.” For more than 20 years, until the late 1980s, Philip Morris and Leo Burnett carefully constructed the Marlboro campaign around Winfield’s sinewy, weather-beaten looks. At one point he was appearing in more than eight in 10 Marlboro adverts.

Carrier: Darrell Winfield was essentially a cow boss. He was one of these grunts who moved cattle at a place in Wyoming for a wealthy rancher and mucked around in cow shit, moving cattle from pasture to pasture. So when the ad people got tired of the Texas landscape, they moved to Wyoming so they could get snow-capped mountain peaks in the backgrounds of their ads. While they were in Wyoming, they discovered Winfield out there by the Wind Rivers . He looked great, and of course, he could ride, so they did some test shots of him and found that he had this appealing look. Then they hired him as one of their models.

He wasn’t a pretty boy at all. He had a mustache and kind of a grizzled face, but he was one of the truly authentic cowboys they used. He also bought a piece of property where he raised horses and rented them for Marlboro ads. But like any good Westerner, he did blacksmithing work and had a family and traded horses — the people in Wyoming knew him well. He was a very authentic guy, and I got to spend quite a lot of time with him. I think he understood clearly what he was doing. He eventually gave up smoking, as did many of the major models, and while a few of them eventually came out against smoking, not him. I think he accepted it for what it was.

The Telegraph excerpt: In an interview with the Los Angeles Times in 1975, Winfield said that Leo Burnett didn’t do “phoney baloney stuff” and claimed that the Marlboro Country image was “as close to authentic as they can make it.” Winfield didn’t wear make-up, wore his own clothes in the shoots and often provided many of the cattle and horses that appeared in the images. Asked what life might have been like if he had not become the Marlboro Man, Winfield replied that it would have been “basically the same.”

What the adverts understandably failed to mention was the toll of four ( or five, according to some reports ) “Marlboro Men” who have fallen victim to smoking-related diseases over the years. Despite the high death toll, Winfield remained loyal to the Philip Morris brand until his death following a “lengthy illness.”

The Deaths of the Marlboro Man

In 1999, the Marlboro Man campaign ended in America thanks to anti-smoking legislation . Twenty years later, while the Marlboro Man may evoke a sense of nostalgia for some due to its beautiful imagery of the West, for so many who have had a loved one die from smoking-related illnesses, he has a much darker legacy. Winfield’s cause of death was never disclosed to the public, but several of the other Marlboro Men officially died from lung cancer. While it’s tempting to look at the beautiful ads and artwork of the Marlboro Man and pine for a simpler time, it’s also important to remember that — while they had a significant impact upon American culture — they were still just advertisements, and they were used to sell a product that would kill millions (and is still killing people today).

The Los Angeles Times, “At Least Four Marlboro Men Have Died of Smoking-Related Diseases,” excerpt: For the longest time, the Marlboro Man was synonymous with America’s image of itself — tough, self-sufficient, hard-working. Today, the reality about the Marlboro Man is darker: At least four actors who have played him in ads have died of smoking-related diseases.

The latest was Eric Lawson, 72. “He knew the cigarettes had a hold on him,” his wife, Susan Lawson, told the Associated Press. “He knew, yet he still couldn’t stop.” She said he died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is most frequently caused by smoking. He took up the habit at age 14.

Marlboro Man David Millar of Meriden, N.H., succumbed to emphysema in 1987 at age 81. [He] had smoked for about 40 to 45 years before quitting.

Another Marlboro Man from California, David McLean, died of lung cancer at 73 in the UCLA Medical Center in 1995. His widow later sued Philip Morris, contending that McLean had to smoke pack after pack of cigarettes during Marlboro shoots so directors could create the perfect scene.

Wayne McLaren died of lung cancer in 1992 at age 51 after 25 years of smoking. His modeling job with Marlboro was followed by an anti-smoking campaign that lasted until his death. “I’ve spent the last month of my life in an incubator and I’m telling you, it’s just not worth it,” McLaren told a Los Angeles Times reporter from his deathbed in Newport Beach, where he lay with several tubes connected to his body.

After he died a week later, his mother, Louise, told The Times that some of McLaren’s last words were, “Take care of the children. Tobacco will kill you, and I am living proof of it.” McLaren had waged an anti-smoking war against Marlboro and its owner, Phillip Morris, complaining that the ads targeted kids, “the only target the companies have left.”

Carrier: Back in 1990, I had a really great job with the Denver Post , where I was called the ‘Rocky Mountain Ranger’ — I’d go on these big projects covering the major issues of the West. I decided to focus on the Marlboro Man and spent about a year locating the guys on the billboards, researching the campaign, visiting the venues where the images were shot. I did a lot of reporting on how it affected people’s attitudes about the West.

I found that the Marlboro Man ads did have an impact upon the West, as Marlboro continued to portray the American West as a land without limits — a land where you could ride a horse or drive cattle into a limitless horizon. Even well before the Marlboro Man campaign began, that was no longer a reality in the West: It had been settled it had been fenced. The West is a place of severe limits of water and tillable land. There’s no question in my mind that many people moved West and bought a five-acre ranch with this idea that somehow they were living the dream, but it cut up a lot of land and it turned out to be property that you couldn’t raise a family on or even ranch. So I think Marlboro gave us this image of the West that didn’t serve it well.

And while I went into my project with a romantic notion, I came to realize that what Philip Morris did was hijack the image of the cowboy — an authentic American hero — and used it to pedal cigarettes, and ultimately, to pedal death.

Brian VanHooker

Brian VanHooker is a writer at MEL. He is the co-creator of the John O'Hurley pilot ‘The Tramp’ and co-created 'Barnum & Elwood.’ He also hosts a TMNT interview podcast.


Tucker: Big Tech trying to erase history through mass censorship

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON
TONIGHT. It is official, you are no longer allowed to mention voter fraud
in public. If you don't believe us, go ahead and try it. Google will
silence you.

In other words, the very people who rigged this election, with
unprecedented mass censorship of the entire country are now covering their
tracks by erasing history, and imposing even more restrictive censorship on
the American population.

We will have more on this unfolding nightmare of tech totalitarianism in
just a minute. But first for you, a FOX News alert. Joe Biden's transition
team has just released a statement. It is attributed to Hunter Biden and it
reads this way.

Quote, "I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are
investigating my tax affairs. I take this matter very seriously, but I am
confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will
demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including
with the benefit of professional tax advisors," end quote.

Well, a few of us knew that already, to be honest. Shortly before last
month's election, we reported on this show that Federal prosecutors had
opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings with
China among other countries.

We knew that was true, which is why we said it. Other news organizations
knew it was true, too, but they didn't say it. They said nothing.

They hid that news -- critically relevant news -- from their readers and
their viewers. They didn't want to hurt Joe Biden's chances of getting
elected.

The Justice Department itself refused to confirm the existence of that
investigation for fear of being accused of political interference. So going
into Election Day, most Americans had no idea any of this was going on. All
they knew was that Joe Biden had dismissed the entire thing as a Russian
plot, and that large numbers of senior officials in the so-called
intelligence community agreed with that assessment. That's what Joe Biden
said at the debate.

Again, what we're about to play for you is the sum total of information
that most voters in this country got about the Biden family's business
dealings with China in the weeks before they made up their minds in this
election. Watch.

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are 50 former
National Intelligence folks who said that what he is accusing me of is a
Russian plant. They have said that this has all of the -- four -- five
former heads of the C.I.A., both parties say what he is saying is a bunch
of garbage. Nobody believes it, except him. Him and his good friend, Rudy
Giuliani.

CARLSON: Oh, so 50 former Intelligence folks have decided that it's
Russian garbage. It's just more Slavic disinformation. Just another example
of the Kremlin interfering in our sacred democracy. The Intel community has
decided that so just throw it in the circular file.

Well, that's a familiar line. You've heard it many times before. In fact,
you've heard it every day for years. Russia. Yet, somehow you haven't heard
it much recently. In fact, for about a month and eight days to be exact.

Democrats have about zero interest in highlighting Russian meddling in this
election. Assuming there was any Russian meddling, it was not very
effective.

Apparently, Vladimir Putin let down his closest friend just when it
counted, poignant. In fact, the whole topic of foreign interference no
longer seems like a priority for the Democratic Party. Have you noticed?
Why? Because it's now clear to everyone whether they are willing to admit
it or not, that the real threat to this country is not Russia, it hasn't
been Russia for 30 years since the summer of 1991, when the Soviet Union
collapsed, and to claim otherwise is absurd, and was always absurd.

The truth is that the real threat we face as a country is from the
communist government of China, which and everyone knows this, too, has long
been in bed with our Democratic elites, in some cases, literally in bed.
And yes, we're looking at you, Eric Swalwell, you lying creep. More on him
in just a minute.

But back to tonight's news on the Biden family. How do we know for sure
that Hunter Biden is under Federal investigation? Where did the news come
from?

Well, it came directly from the Biden transition team. They're the ones who
told us. The confirmation of this investigation was not leaked to "The New
York Times." It came right from the top of the Democratic Party.

In fact, in tonight's statement, it included a message from Joe Biden
himself, affirming that he is quote, "deeply proud of his son."

Joe Biden didn't specify why he was so gosh darn proud of Hunter Biden.
Maybe federal investigations are a rite of passage in the Biden family, we
can only speculate.

We can be pretty sure that Joe Biden didn't want to issue the statement in
the first place. Why would he? Who would want to issue it? He issued it
because he was pushed. By whom? And for what purpose was he pushed? That's
the question tonight.

Now, we don't know the answer to that. We do know that there are powerful
forces within the Democratic Party that do not like Joe Biden. They believe
Joe Biden is too male and too white and too wedded to the old ways, wedded
to politics, as it used to be back when there was a functioning
Constitution that provided checks and balances on power.

People like that would like to displace Joe Biden and get right to the part
of the story where Kamala Harris and her sponsors at Google run the United
States of America, and it is hard to believe they are going to wait four
years to do that. We'll see. You heard it here first.

According to what we've learned tonight from the statement, the
investigation into Hunter Biden is not related to his drug use, we
confirmed that as well. Instead, the investigation is based in part on
suspicious activity reports on foreign transactions.

Now, keep in mind, in the weeks before the election, you were not allowed
to go on Twitter or Facebook and discuss those suspicious foreign
transactions.

You couldn't talk about them even after Hunter Biden's business associates,
people like Tony Bobulinski came forward in public with evidence that those
were real. You had to be quiet and not tell your neighbors about any of it.
In case your neighbors might be tempted not to vote for Joe Biden once they
learned it. And they might have been tempted not to vote for Joe Biden had
they known.

On this show, Tony Bobulinski revealed that Hunter Biden made deals with
groups connected directly to the Communist Party of China and he made those
deals with the blessing of his father, explicitly, the former Vice
President Joe Biden, who himself was profiting from those deals directly.

CARLSON: The former Vice President has said he had no knowledge whatsoever
of his son's business dealings and was not involved in them at all. But
this sounds like direct involvement in them.

TONY BOBULINSKI, FORMER BUSINESS AFFILIATE OF HUNTER BIDEN: Yes, that's a
blatant lie. When he states that that is a blatant lie.

Obviously, the world is aware that I attended the debate last Thursday, and
in that debate, he made a specific statement around questions around this
from the President. And I'll be honest with you, I almost stood up and
screamed "liar" and walked out because I was shocked that after four days
or five days that they prepped for this, that the Biden family is taking
that position to the world.

CARLSON: Again, that was Tony Bobulinski who is in business with Hunter
Biden, who met with Joe Biden to discuss that business with China. That's
what he said on camera.

And at the time, they called it a conspiracy theory. CNN rolled its eyes
literally. They dismissed it as Russian disinformation. Most media outlets
deemed unworthy of mentioning at all.

Now it turns out, all of them were lying. Again, if you're looking for
election rigging, look no further. That's what this is.

They kept information from the public in order to influence the outcome of
the election. They rigged it.

A few good reporters have been vindicated tonight, starting with the tough,
but beleaguered staff of "The New York Post" who took a massive amount of
crap for telling the truth.

Miranda Devine is among them. She works at "The New York Post" and she
joins us tonight. Miranda, thanks so much for coming back on the show.

So a lot of the things that you suggested in our conversations and in
pieces that you wrote for "The New York Post," turned out to be vindicated
by the Biden transition team. How does that feel?

MIRANDA DEVINE, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK POST": Well, it is so frustrating
and the timing, of course of that peculiar statement today is perfect,
because it comes a month after the election. So there's no real
consequences for Joe Biden.

He just -- it's damage control. He throws out the garbage before Christmas
when no one is really paying any attention. And I mean, it's interesting
that Hunter Biden has made this statement, and it's quite peculiar that it
has been released by the Biden-Harris presidential transition team.

You know, an official press release with Joe Biden adding his little plea
for sympathy, which he has used so cynically and successfully in the past
to try and shield his family's dodgy business dealings overseas by you
know, saying, "Oh, my poor son, Hunter has a drug problem." Well, that just
won't wash.

And, you know, I think also that the timing of this statement coming just
one day after a really damning report from two Senate Committees Homeland
Security and Finance Committees with plenty of evidence including from
Hunter Biden's laptop and from Tony Bobulinski's revelations, which points
to an influence peddling scheme being run by the Biden family around the
world, but most dangerously, in China, and China is our number one national
security threat.

And we now have a man who is compromised by China, who is heading into the
White House next month.

CARLSON: What do you make, and by the way, you make such a good point
about the cynicism behind his - my son is a drug problem, be nice. Millions
of Americans have had drug problems, they don't get a pass. No one should
get a pass for that.

But let me ask you, what do you make of the fact that this story is being
carried by media outlets that just a month ago refused even to acknowledge
that this was a story?

DEVINE: Well, they buried it. I mean, they very successfully suppressed it
with the help of Big Tech. But now, of course, it doesn't matter because
Joe Biden, as far as they are concerned, has won the election. He doesn't
need that kind of suppression of a story, so they'll report just what the
Bidens want them to report and then move on, I'm sure.

And it just shows that our story was correct and your stories were correct
during the election campaign, but at that time, they were dangerous to
Biden's re-election efforts. And we know that those suppression efforts
worked, because there are polls showing that almost half of Joe Biden's
voters had no idea about the Hunter Biden laptop story. And 10 percent of
them would have changed their vote, if they had known and that's in
battleground states, it would have changed the result of the election.

CARLSON: It's so funny. You see all of these Republicans jumping up and
down about voter fraud, there was voter fraud. There's no doubt old
fashioned voter fraud. But this is election rigging that took place in
public by the Big Tech companies, and they are not saying anything about
it.

So it tells you something about their sincerity, I would say. I can't
resist editorializing.

Miranda Devine, great to see you. I hope you'll come back.

CARLSON: Speaking of censorship and rigging the election, in a blog post
today, YouTube owned by Google vowed that its teams are working around the
clock to stop what it called harmful misinformation and harmful content.

They said they are deeply concerned about quote, "making sure our platform
isn't abused to incite real world harm." Now what does that mean exactly
coming from a company that has caused so much quote "real world harm"?

Well, YouTube explained, quote, "We will start removing any piece of
content uploaded today or any time after that misleads people by alleging
that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election."

The irony here is enough to make you dizzy. The company that rigged the
election, by suppressing legitimate information in order to influence the
outcome of the election, more effectively than any foreign government could
ever do is now telling us to preserve our faith in the election, they need
to censor us more.

So how exactly are election related videos causing harm? Well, YouTube
doesn't explain that they would cause harm to YouTube's reputation and
Google's reputation much deserved. We need to break this company up like
immediately.

But YouTube does go on to boast that its censorship campaign has already
been underway for quite some time, quote, "Since September, we've
terminated over 8,000 channels and thousands of harmful and misleading
election related videos for violating our existing policies." They used the
word "terminated" by the way. That's not creepy or anything.

Continuing the quote, "Over 77 percent of those removed videos were taken
down before they had a hundred views." What in the world is going on here?
Ask rational questions and you reach a dead end because there are no
rational answers. This is just flat out totalitarian control over the
population.

So you can stream the film series "Loose Change" in its entirety on
YouTube. It's not a hidden video, it pops up quickly in search results and
appears high up on the page. The premise of that film is that the September
11 terror attacks were a false flag operation and that remote controlled
drones not passenger planes hit the Twin Towers.

YouTube's algorithms, one that can smite election videos before they manage
to get a hundred views haven't shut that down. There's a lot of stuff on
there, by the way, on YouTube that's not only unsupportable, but fully
crazy.

You can watch thousands of videos explaining how Russia hacked our voting
machines or mind controlled thousands of Americans with Facebook memes.
That's how dumb we are. A Facebook meme can take over your brain.

One YouTube video from PBS today, which we pay for by the way and
shouldn't, goes into great detail about how Russia quote "swung the 2016
election." You're paying for that crap, state media. It's not true, but
whether it's true or not, isn't the point. You think Google cares whether
it's true? No. They care whether it has the right political message. That
does, so they allow it.

There's another motivation here by the way, beyond helping their team,
Silicon Valley is trying to destroy the evidence of their own misdeeds. No
single group perpetuated more fraud on last month's election than the tech
billionaires who are now telling us there was no fraud at all.

Harmeet Dillon is a Civil Rights attorney. She is one of the most dogged
First Amendment lawyers, there are a very few left in this country and
we're proud to have her on tonight.

Harmeet, this is enough to make you feel like, wow, things are falling
apart. If they can hide the evidence of their own misdeeds, what can't they
do?

HARMEET DHILLON, NATIONAL CO-CHAIR, LAWYERS FOR TRUMP: Well, it is a new
development, Tucker, that they are hiding the evidence of their own
misdeeds, but anybody who has been watching what Google and the other Big
Tech giants have been doing for years is not surprised that their
algorithms are so on point that they are able to, as you pointed out, smite
the very video before it even lands in a hundred computer inboxes and, and
how they do that as for years, they've been writing these algorithms which
treat different things differently.

So if you want to, for example, put out an anti-Semitic video or post on
Twitter, they treat that differently than an anti-Muslim video. This is
from evidence that has been leaked out of YouTube by its programmers.

And you know, when you look at this situation, you understand, anybody
who's been there that for years, for 3.9 years, they have allowed false
information concerning the 2016 election to flourish, thrive and propagate
and that will continue for years to come.

When you talk about the harm of an election and any misinformation, what's
the harm here? The election has already occurred. So why are they so
desperate to eliminate the evidence and eliminate discussion of it?

DHILLON: You pointed out one, some of these tech companies, Facebook has
been known to have sent reminders to vote or reminders to register only to
Democrats right before the election. I would argue that's a violation of
the Federal Election Commission regulations. And you know, somebody needs
to take that up.

But they want to shame people, they want to shame all these YouTube
creators who make their living off of being on that channel, and maybe they
should consider that, they want to shame them from ever saying anything
that violates the orthodoxy.

It is a Pavlovian response that they're trying to elicit here to keep you
away from the danger wire, keep you away from the electrical fence.

So -- and people will do that, because people's livelihoods depend on
those, and nobody wants to be called a crazy person or somebody who was
banned from YouTube. There's no pride in that and there goes your revenue.

So this is about the next election and the next election. These are tactics
that Google appears to have learned from its, you know, cash cow in China.
They've been developing AI and intelligence over there. And in China,
people are followed around with these social credit score.

So we don't want to see that in here in America, but we're seeing it right
now. Tucker, and it's very scary.

CARLSON: It's horrifying. Harmeet Dhillon, thanks for joining us tonight.

CARLSON: The message in case you're missing it, it is completely true, is
that Google in its present state is incompatible with our democracy. You
can't have a democracy if Google exists as it does now. It's that simple.

Well, also tonight, we're learning a lot more about Congressman Eric
Swalwell of California, his personal relationship with a Chinese spy. Some
of the details of that relationship are apparently are so salacious,
possibly so weird, that they're classified.

But Mark Steyn is not fazed at all. He joins us to share what he has
learned about Congressman Eric Swalwell's personal relationship with a
Chinese spy, which is real. Straight ahead.

CARLSON: We learned yesterday that Congressman Eric Swalwell of
California, a very high profile though young Member of Congress who has got
a seat on the Intel Committee carried on a personal relationship with a
Chinese spy called Christine Fang.

But if you're wondering who is the real culprit here, who is really at
fault for this obvious breach of our national security? Rest assured it's
not the government of China, it is not Christine Fang. It's definitely not
Eric Swalwell. He's blameless. No, according to Eric Swalwell, here is
whose fault it is.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): The wrongdoing here, Jim, is that at the same
time the story was being leaked out is the time that I was working on
impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

And if this is a country where people who criticize the President are going
to have law enforcement information weaponized against them, then that's
not a country that any of us want to live in, and I hope it is investigated
as to who leaked this information.

CARLSON: He doesn't want to live in a country where you can't sleep with
Chinese spies or let them put interns in your office. I don't want to --
that's not -- that's not the America Eric Swalwell knows.

Well, to be fair to Eric Swalwell, of course we want to be, he has been
pretty consistent on this point. Spending personal time with Chinese spies
has never been an issue for him or for anyone else in the Democratic Party.
That's pretty common.

But come within six feet of a Russian spy, that's where Eric Swalwell draws
the line.

SWALWELL: Stated plainly, the President's son met with a Russian spy. We
now have the best evidence of that. In our minority report, the Democrats
put out that Ms. Veselnitskaya was going all over the world and bumping
into Dana Rohrabacher, which is a sign of a spy, someone who tries to
create, you know, a coincidence encounter.

And now we know that she was working at the behest of the Russian
government.

CARLSON: Oh, okay. Just so you know the standards, ladies and gentlemen,
get a pen. The President's son bumped into someone from Russia, therefore,
he is compromised.

Well, given that, we asked Eric Swalwell's office whether the Congressman
ever bumped into the Chinese spy and kept bumping, if you know what we
mean? They responded with the following statement, quote, "To protect
information that might be classified, Swalwell will not participate in your
story."

So whether Eric Swalwell bumped into the Chinese spy repeatedly is
classified. Mark Steyn is a bestselling author and an expert on classified
sexual encounters. He joins us tonight to declassify the story.

Mark Steyn, it is great to see you. What do you make of Eric Swalwell's
classification standards here?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, yes, I hadn't actually thought
that bumping into Dana Rohrabacher is actually the very definition of a
spy. But on that basis, bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-bumpity bumper thing, I
think it was a dance craze in the 70s called doing-a-bump.

He was doing the bump with this gal all over town, and it's tempting to be
comical about it. I mean, the actual F.B.I. eavesdropping where she is
making out with that Ohio mayor in the car, and the mayor says, "Why are
you interested in me? I'm 87 years old, and I don't seem your type." And
she says, "Well, I'm interested in improving my English."

I believe that actually is from the pre-credit sequence of the 007 film,
"The Spy Who Loved Me," where Roger Moore is putting it to the Soviet
double agent and she says she's always wanted to improve her facility with
the English tongue.

So there is an aspect of this that is just drawn from the most absurd
heightened notions of a spy drama, but at core, there's something serious
going on.

The F.B.I., for example, when they find out she is a spy, why don't they
turn her? Why don't they just put them in a room in a safe house and say,
okay, you're working for us now. Instead, they go to Swalwell and tipped
Swalwell off that his bumpity bumping with the Chinese spy has come to
their attention. And he tells her and she leaves the country.

That's actually an F.B.I. scandal and a Swalwell scandal.

STEYN: And that's interesting to me is we have all these checks and
balances, and none of them work. It's illegal for a foreign national to
give a hundred bucks to a presidential campaign. But it's not illegal for a
Chinese spy to be a bundler for Eric Swalwell and help take him from a no
nothing councilman in San Francisco to the literal Manchurian candidate in
the 2020 election.

This is a scandal, both for the F.B.I. and for Swalwell, too.

CARLSON: So we know that Christine Fang bundled for Eric Swalwell, the
extent to which she bundled is classified. Is there some way we can
declassify this?

STEYN: Well, it isn't classified, is it? I mean, basically, Eric Swalwell
is asserting that his bumping and bundling is classified. Now everything is
over classified in this country.

As you know, there is -- there are over four million people with top
security clearances. That's the population in New Zealand, wandering around
America with top security clearances. It is completely ridiculous.

STEYN: But I can tell you that the very one thing that is not bundled, is
Eric Swalwell's romantic life. That's not classified. That will be the last
thing to be classified.

Everything is classified now, but the one remaining thing that isn't
classified is Eric Swalwell's sex life. The difference between this and the
Cold War days you know, the minute this came out and you were linked to an
espionage and you are on the Intelligence Committee, you are finished, like
Michael Straight.

STEYN: The American end of the Cambridge spies, he never recovered from
that. Swalwell is a disgrace. He is on the Intelligence Committee. He has
been compromised by the Chinese. And in fact, he embodies the way the
Democrat leadership has been compromised by the Chinese because whatever --
when you and Miranda were talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, whatever you
think that laptop discloses about Biden, you have to know Chairman Xi has a
zillion e-mails and texts even more compromising.

CARLSON: Of course. And Nancy Pelosi defended Eric Swalwell while
remaining on the Intel Committee today. It's hard to believe this is
happening, but it is.

Mark Steyn, great to see you.

STEYN: No. Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: So obviously, nobody trusts the people who run the country
anymore. But now in the middle of this endemic distrust, they are planning
to force you to take the coronavirus vaccine. It's so safe, they have to
threaten you to take it.

If they do that, that could lead to a legitimate crisis. Victor Davis
Hanson is here to explain, next.

CARLSON: Well, the very same people who scream "my body my choice" and put
it on their t-shirts have identified a new cause tonight.

A lawmaker in New York is proposing legislation that would quote, "mandate
vaccinations" if any of the serfs are foolish enough to refuse to take the
new coronavirus vaccine.

What happens if people refuse? We don't know. In New York, it might depend
entirely on the color of your skin.

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): This has to be done in a way that protects
social justice. The healthcare system discriminates against black, brown
and poor communities by effect, you have fewer healthcare facilities in
poorer communities. That is a fact.

We want to make sure when we do the vaccine, that it is done in a just and
fair and equal way.

CARLSON: So like most rational people, we're not against vaccines, were
for vaccines. The polio vaccine saved millions of children. But in this
very specific case, let's be clear. If the people in charge force the
population to take this vaccine, we can have a legitimate crisis on our
hands in this country.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joins
us tonight with his thoughts on where we might be going.

Professor, thanks so much for coming on. What do you make of this?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Thank you. Well, I
should say I'm not a doctor, I'm a historian. And I'm 67 and I have a few
health issues, so I'll probably eerily take the vaccine.

But I think what they're trying to err on is that they want to encourage
people to get as 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent either who have been
infected with antibodies, but it's not as much as we thought, it's probably
30 million. So we've got another 200 million to go, and so we can get so-
called, you know, the taboo word, "herd immunity," and that means we're
going to have to rely on a vaccination.

And we didn't think when this thing hit us in March, we thought, well, in
10 months, we'll have effective therapeutics that are coming, but they're
not here yet, that will just cure it or we'll have a vaccination early or
we won't have 300,000 dead.

So they have to find the fine line, and behind all of this, Tucker is the
1976 swine flu epidemic, and that's when we were told that it was going to
wipe out -- it's going to be another 1918. It started in a military base.
Legionnaires' disease was attributed to it. We had to rush a vaccine. We
rushed a vaccine in nine or 10 months.

I got it. I remember getting it and being very ill as a student from it for
about 10 days, and it made a lot of people sick. In fact, some got
Guillain-Barre syndrome and after 25 percent of the population was
inoculated, they said A, it is too dangerous or it has too many side
effects. And B, and more importantly, it didn't materialize.

And that was unfortunate because it cast a pall over what's very necessary
for vaccinations.

So historically, the courts have ruled that states have a right to -- in
19th Century put a quarantine on people, so sorry, you can't go to school
unless you've had a polio vaccine or you can't go to work unless you've had
smallpox and that was wise.

But they usually adjudicated that by saying, are we in a pandemic and is it
a lethal thing? So get a flu shot, but you don't have to. We recommend
shingles, but you don't have to.

And then COVID comes along and they don't know what to do because 99.5
percent under the age of 60 are not going to die from it. But maybe 13 or
14 percent over the age of 75 might and they don't know -- and it's very
infectious, but it does -- they don't know how to calibrate it.

So you have people like this sounding off, we are going to coerce people
where the smart thing I think to do is encourage as many people as you can
and keep flexible. So you don't coerce people and you don't go back to 1976
and force people to do it or mandate it and then have it blow up in your
face, but hope that the 30 million that have antibodies or maybe it's more,
it might be 11 percent or 20 percent, maybe not vaccinate them historically
would say you might not want to vaccinate them first.

Vaccinate people on the frontlines that are continually exposed to viral
loads, people over 60 and then give other people the choice and hope that
they vaccinate, but don't coerce them to and you're going to get close to
50 or 60 percent, and maybe like wane a little bit why that last cohort,
that's not as susceptible will make that choice for themselves, then you
can educate them, and hopefully they'll do the right thing and get
vaccinated, if it's safe.

CARLSON: We hope so. You can't treat people like animals. You have to win
them over. Threatening people doesn't increase trust.

HANSON: No, you have to win them over, and we didn't do that in '76, and
when the AIDS epidemic came out, people, I think were too hesitant because
they thought we don't want to go and rush in a vaccine or a new treatment.
Look what happened in '76.

CARLSON: No. That's a really good point.

HANSON: And that's what -- I think we are trying to balance the extremes
of both coercion and then just laxity and so far, I think people will make
the right decision.

CARLSON: I think so, too, if you let them. Victor Davis Hanson, thank you
for that.

HANSON: If you let them. Thank you.

CARLSON: So all of a sudden, you wake up and identity politics is playing
a role in the distribution of a vaccine that's not quite here yet.

Identity politics also controls, to some extent, which businesses get
coronavirus relief funds they need to survive.

In Oregon, for example, the state has created a $62 million fund that only
black-owned businesses can participate in. Business owners there have sued
saying they were denied stimulus money because they didn't quote, "identify
as black."

So what's the effect on our society more broadly, of policies like this?
Shelby Steele spent a lot of time thinking about this. He's a Senior Fellow
at the Hoover Institution and writer of the documentary "What Killed
Michael Brown." We're honored to have Shelby Steele on the show tonight.

Mr. Steele, thanks so much for coming on. So what do you think --

SHELBY STEELE, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: At a time when Americans in huge numbers really don't trust each
other, what do you think the effect of articulating policies like this out
loud has on the country?

STEELE: I think it has a terrible effect. I mean, what we're -- policies
like this are basically where you are using racism, in order to somehow
cure or repair the damage done by historical racism.

And so, it is the same precise sin being used over and over again and it
begins to corrode the values and principles that made America strong as
time goes on. It breaks our faith with our principles.

CARLSON: So you're saying that you cannot --

STEELE: It can be corrupted by race.

CARLSON: You can't repair the damage done by historical racism by
committing new acts of racism?

STEELE: That's right. It is a futility even on its face. But again, it's
like any -- the bad racial habit that we have in America is -- and we have
always had different one form or another -- is to pick up race and use it
as a means to power.

STEELE: It has no other function whatsoever. It is -- you can't work hard
and become a race. It is something I use in order to gain power over you.

And so when you see something like this, then somebody is looking for
power. My guess is the political left wants again, to see blacks cast
blacks as victims of racial persecution, and therefore deserving of
entitlements and so forth.

And so that's really -- that's really what it's about. It puts blacks in a
terrible position, because then they're stigmatized as inferior once again,
and it's bad for everybody.

CARLSON: The bad habit that we have in America and have always had is
using race as a means to get power. That is a perfect summation of what
we're seeing. Shelby Steele, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank
you.

CARLSON: So you never hear it and the people in charge hate to admit it,
but whether or not you get coronavirus, you're going to die in the end
anyway, all of us are.

How do you deal with that fact? Well, you start by confirming it because
it's true. Mike Rowe has thought a lot about this. He joins us next to
explain his conclusions.

CARLSON: Death is inevitable. That's the one thing that's for certain,
unfortunately a secular society and there has never been a mass secular
society in all human history up until recently, maybe because a secular
society has no answer for the most basic fact of life.

And so the position of our society, the people who run it, is that life
must be preserved at all costs, even if that means locking everyone in
their room for nine months and killing people as they do it.

Mike Rowe is not a religious leader, but he is a very wise man. He is of
course an author and television host. He has an idea called safety third
and we thought tonight would be a good time for him to explain it to us.
Mike Rowe, great to see you as always.

Safety third. I don't think you have it in the right, but isn't supposed to
be first.

MIKE ROWE, AUTHOR AND TELEVISION HOST: Well, top five, for sure. Safety
third really began as a good natured attempt on "Dirty Jobs" to inject a
little personal responsibility back into the prevailing orthodoxy, which is
exactly as you have stated, safety first.

And safety first, like so many well-intended ideas was a notion that simply
got a little ahead of itself. I mean, there was a real problem with
occupational safety in this country a hundred years ago, something had to
be done. OSHA came along, and a lot of people got behind it and introduced
a phrase that has become a bromide and a platitude, and that phrase is
"safety first."

But of course, it can't really be true, right? I mean, no business exists
for the purpose of being safe. Businesses exist for the purpose of making
things and paying people money to work. You can do those things safely,
obviously. But so many companies spend so much time telling their employees
that they care more about their own safety than they do that something
really interesting, I think can happen and I saw this on "Dirty Jobs."

Safety third really began as a one-hour special to look back at the
unintended consequences of what could happen on the job if safety were
overvalued.

And this, of course, was very controversial, but it ginned up a great
conversation and allowed us to look at things like risk equilibrium and
homeostatic risk and all kinds of different things that impact our behavior
when safety is accentuated.

And the levels of complacency, paradoxically enough that often infect us
when we are in compliance, completely in compliance, whether it's wearing a
seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet or a mask, you can be in compliance and
still not be out of danger.

ROWE: So, everybody on my crew was safe for the first two seasons, nobody
got hurt and we sat through dozens of mandatory safety briefings, all we
heard was safety first. By season three and four, we were breaking fingers
and toes and ribs. Everything went off the rails, we were all getting beat
up. Fortunately, no one too tragically.

But what happened was we simply bought into the idea that our safety was
somebody else's responsibility. I started saying safety third is a reminder
to me and my crew that the minute you believe that you're in danger.

CARLSON: Well, I wonder and we're almost out of time, just give me in one
sentence. Do you think you'd be allowed to make a TV show with the title
"Safety Third" right now?

ROWE: No. That's the one word answer. But if you want a little more
insight, Google C.S. Lewis, he wrote an incredible essay back in 1948,
called "On living in the atomic age." And it frames the entire proposition
perfectly. As you said at the outset, nobody is getting out of this alive.

CARLSON: I'm going to read that tonight. Thank you for that. Mike Rowe, it
is great to see you.

CARLSON: You remember CHAZ, of course. Are you ready for CHAZ, the sequel?
Well, there is one. It's a new autonomous zone. It's got everything: armed
guards, stockpile weapons, you name it. We'll tell you where it is and how
it's going, next.

CARLSON: CHAZ: the sequel is here. Where? Jason Rantz, our longtime CHAZ
correspondent, Seattle radio show host joins us now with details. Hey,
Jason.

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RADIO SHOW HOST: Hey, Summer of Love in Seattle. So I
guess the winter of discontent in Portland, North Portland specifically,
it's the Red House Autonomous Zone. A group of activists within Antifa
movement have set up basically a two to two and a half block radius around
a house that was lost to foreclosure after a two-year battle.

The family is black and indigenous and so, the primarily white Antifa
residents believe that this is an example of gentrification. There's no
actual evidence that this is gentrification. However, there is a lot of
evidence that there's been a lot of crime going on as the folks refuse to
leave.

Cops yesterday tried to remove them from the home. Finally, remove them
from the home except they came under assault, the officers, from a lot of
people who set up camp there.

As they retreated, it ended up giving a lot of room to the Antifa
protesters to set up a camp, and right now they are barricaded. They've got
a stockpile of weapons. They've got armed guards. They've got a kitchen
ready so they are there for the long haul, as the Portland Police
Department are trying to figure out what exactly they're going to do.

But they are amplifying the urgency of the messaging saying, you guys do
have to leave peacefully. We're not going to put up with this. So we could
potentially see action from the police in the next 24 hours.

CARLSON: It's happening because we are putting up with it. You get what
you put with. If you let your kids smoke weed at the breakfast table, they
will.

CARLSON: That's the lesson. Jason Rantz, great to see you. And with that,
we are our out of time and Sean Hannity takes over.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: I don't want to jump the gun here.
Did I just hear what you said? Kids at the dinner table -- I think I heard
it right.

CARLSON: You get what you put up with. That's the truth. If you let your
kids smoke weed at the breakfast table, guess what, they will. So don't let
them. How's that?

HANNITY: Listen to Tucker, mom and dad. Tucker is giving you good advice
for parenting. All right, thank you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may
not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the content.


The History Of Marketing: From Trade to Tech

Today marketing is known as an advanced blend of strategy and technology, however, it hasn’t always been this way. The history of marketing as we know it began with humble beginnings of simply trying to sell goods and services.

Attempts to accomplish this may be as old as civilization itself. Some believe it started with trying to presents goods in a certain way for trading. The effort to develop persuasive communications for selling goods and services has been around since the times of ancient China and India. This activity may not have been recognized as a marketing business at the time, but it is where the idea for marketing started to develop.

Recommended Articles

The First Movie Ever Made: Why and when films were invented
Christmas Trees, A History
The History of Hollywood: The Film Industry Exposed

Concept Of Marketing

The ideas of marketing as it is understood in the modern era began during the time of the Industrial Revolution. This period spanned the late 18th century and lasted long into the 19th century. It was a time of rapid social change motivated by innovations in the scientific and technological industries.

It was during the Industrial Revolution that purchasing goods began to be easier for a consumer than make things themselves. Mass production created many industries engaged in the same endeavor to serve the needs of a growing consumer market. The infrastructure for transportation as well as mass media took hold. It created a need for producers to find better ways to develop products customers needed and a more sophisticated approach to informing them about these commodities.

Increased Competition

Starting in the early twentieth century to the late 1940s competition in the business world became intense. The need to increase selling by using marketing techniques became an essential part of being competitive. The ability to develop a brand and appropriately market it grown in value.

The competition also drove the need to increase production outputs and market shares within all industries. Marketing began to emphasize distribution methods as well as types of consumer communication. The goal soon became to persuade consumers the goods and services provided by one company were better than those of another company offering the same thing.

Latest Articles

Crassus
Lucius Sulla
Jovian

Marketing Business

Starting in the 1960s the markets in many industries became saturated with competition. The need to get and keep customers now required specialists in the area of direct marketing. This is a time when companies began dedicating entire areas of their business for the sole purpose of marketing a company’s products or services.

This was when marketing management developed the sophistication necessary to be an essential part of business success. Marketing managers began to be involved with strategic planning. Their input was important for determining the cost, the methods used to communicate information about products and services to consumers and more.

Strategic Branding

The world of marketing began to change during the 1990s. A product or service was created and instantly a brand was developed. Companies began to realize they could focus on selling more high-quality products and build a better brand for them. This resulted in companies experiencing an improvement in their margins, but also expanded their reputation. It also increased the awareness of the brand they had created. Some companies with a private label were able to improve their market share by more than 49 percent.

Internet Marketing

With the evolution of the web, websites started being an essential tool for commercialization. During the late 1990s, simple company websites that were text-based began to flourish. They were initially utilized to provide information about a company’s products or services.

The first company to have an online marketing campaign was Bristol-Myers Squibb to promote their Excedrin product. The campaign was a success, and Bristol-Myers Squibb was able to add tens of thousands of names to their customer list. Today, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year on the marketing business.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

Within the past 25 years, the importance of using the web and search engines for marketing has increased dramatically. In the beginning, web search engines were not the most efficient operations. Getting a good ranking with a search engine was not complicated. Search engine results were easy to alter, and the quality of the results was poor.

To provide the best quality results, search engines changed their algorithms. The goal was to validate referring sites to ensure the quality of results provided by the search engine. It is now almost impossible to manipulate SEO rankings. When this is attempted, it puts a company at risk for having their brand’s search engine results buried.


This Is The Best Ad Campaign In App History

What better way for an anti-social app to get noticed than by insulting its target audience? London-based app design studio ustwo has just put up a pair of billboards in the hipster heartland of Shoreditch, East London, a stone’s throw from where its own studio is based, which brazenly proclaim: You have no friends and No one likes you.

The billboards, which will be teasing Shoreditch’s hipsters for two weeks, are an experimental ad campaign for one of ustwo’s recent apps: random photo-sharing app Rando, which launched back in March on iOS. Rando has now also been rolled out on to Android and Windows Phone. Last month ustwo said the app had racked up a full five million of its entirely social-less random photo shares after around two months in the wild.

So what’s with the anti-social insults? Rando’s schtick is that it eschews all the usual social paraphernalia developers typically embed in their apps. There’s no Facebook sign-in, zero social sharing options at all, no comments, no likes, no favourites, no followers/followees. There’s also no way to tell who gets the photos you share/receive, beyond a general location. It’s deliberately — liberatingly — stripped of context.

Turning to a fixed-location, paper-based advertising medium may seem pretty old school but Silicon Valley has long had a bit of a thing with billboards. ustwo’s Matt Miller tells TechCrunch that’s certainly one reason he was keen to experiment with papering giant fliers atop one of Shoreditch’s busier junctions. “I’ve always been interested in billboards since flying out to San Fran in 2012. I remember during a taxi journey over there, being really impressed with the billboards and thinking to myself how I’d love to see our work pushed that way back home,” he says.

The cost of the Rando billboard campaign is “around the same amount it would cost us to develop a small app”, according to Mills. But it’s the only paid marketing ustwo intends to do for Rando — relying instead on “the virality of the concept” to keep it travelling, which, ironically enough, has led to plenty of organic chatter on social sites like Twitter and Instagram.

“The irony of Rando is that the majority of promotion very much is driven by the virality of the concept. We’ve had a range of people talking about it on Twitter and Instagram — with a lot saying how much they love the anti-social element of the app. Other than the billboards we won’t be advertising though…we’d rather someone influential picks is up organically and spreads the word,” he says.

The point of the billboards is thus to provoke and spark debate — ustwo is certainly not expecting them to trigger a goldrush of downloads — but if it’s virality you’re after, debate and controversy are your (anti-social) friends. “We hope people will talk, and be intrigued,” Mills adds.

That said, he does also reckon the billboards help to “validate Rando as a quality brand” — showing how, despite everything going digital, paper advertising is still clinging to cachet and a lasting sheen, perhaps even more so as digital ads have cheapened and proliferated. And that despite the impact of paper-based marketing being far more elusive vs measurable clicks.

“We wanted to raise awareness of Rando within the tech and design scene in and around our studio in East London. Also to make the point that in a world so dominated by digital development, we still believe that old school display advertising has the power that no digital can match on a local level in terms of making a big statement,” he says.

“We originally came up with the straplines a few months back and mocked them up into billboards. We had a lot of interest with people asking if they were real or not – which made us decide to actually run them. The ‘no one likes you’ and ‘you have no friends’ message was something we wanted to get out there. The straplines themselves are perfect for Rando and so far removed from the majority of other advertising messages you see out there by big brands, that we had to go for it.”

As for the anti-social stuff in general — that’s always been and continues to be another experiment for ustwo. “Consolidation of anything that people want to engage in, without social validation, is something that really fascinates us and hopefully Rando means we learn a lot more about it,” he adds.

So yeah, Shoreditch hipsters, for the next few week read this and weep…


How ‘The Equal Edit’ campaign is improving gender equality in Swedish history on Wikipedia

During history lessons at school, we were taught about conflicts, innovation, and resolutions that made the world what it is today — without telling the stories of the other half the population. History really has been “his story” — it was written by men, for men, and you guessed it, about men. In the US, 89 percent of the stories in history textbooks are about men . This same story even applies to nations considered great leaders in the fight for gender equality, such as Sweden.

To correct history, the Wikimedia Foundation has collaborated with Wikimedia Sverige to launch “The Equal Edit,” an initiative to make history articles on the Swedish Wikipedia site gender equal by telling the untold stories of influential women throughout time.

Swedish history is unsurprisingly filled with influential women, including Selma Lagerlöf, an author and teacher, although, the Swedish Wikipedia would have you believe otherwise. In the main article about Swedish history , less than 10 percent of the people mentioned are women.

“The Equal Edit” on Wikipedia’s gender disparity.

TNW Conference 2021

Attend the tech festival of the year and get your super early bird ticket now!

The program, which works to write a more accurate and inclusive history, is only made possible by Swedish Wikipedia editor volunteers who have come together to add and update articles about Sweden’s history and highlight important women throughout the country’s history. “The Equal Edit” recently partnered with Historiskan , the first journal in Sweden focusing on women’s history. Together, they’ve compiled a list of influential women and are adding them to articles about Swedish history.

And this isn’t the first time Swedish Wikimedia has worked with gender gap-related projects. They have, for example, partnered with the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Swedish embassies, and Wikimedia affiliates on “ WikiGap ,” a campaign that aims to add more articles about female figures, experts, and role models to Wikipedia.

Currently, fewer than 20 percent of Wikipedia editors identity as women, and just 17 percent of the English-language entries on the online encyclopedia are about women — with women scientists in particular being poorly represented.

But fighting for representation isn’t the only hurdle women face on Wikipedia some have argued that the site holds a systemic bias against anyone who isn’t a white straight man since campaigners found that biographies of women are more likely to be flagged and removed by Wikipedia moderators .

Jess Wade , a physicist and ‘Wikipedian’ is fighting relentlessly to keep profiles up on the site, and has currently added over 700 biographies of women scientists.

Although stats on female representation on Wikipedia vary regionally, no matter which way you look at it, the picture is clear: information on women’s work and the influence they’ve had on history is less extensive than that about men. This is why projects like “The Equal Edit” are necessary to educate and inspire generations to come.


From the back cover [ edit ]

On 1 May 3052, over twenty Galaxies from seven Clans clashed with twelve Armies of ComStar's Com Guards. For twenty-one days, one of the largest campaigns in BattleMech warfare unfolded to decide the fate of the Inner Sphere.

The Battle of Tukayyid brings players back to this gargantuan conflict, allowing them to relive one of BattleTech’s most pivotal moments. It builds off of the Chaos Campaign: Succession Wars framework to unleash a massive experience players will enjoy across dozens of games. Each of the seven campaigns within includes the following: a short fiction entry and write-up of the battle, including a map of the regions the specific Combatants involved, along with insignia and details to allow players to play out each campaign on their tabletop. Finally, a Technical Readout section showcases 'Mech variants that first appeared during this conflict.

This Chaos Campaign puts you as the hero—Aidan Pryde, Anastasius Focht, and others—of the battle. Do you have what it takes to lead the Smoke Jaguars to victory, or will you repeat the failure of the Diamond Shark's? Or can you find a way to defeat the indomitable Clan Wolf? You will decide.


NBA star Chris Paul starts Goalsetter campaign to deposit $40 in a million minority youth accounts

Financial tech company Goalsetter has launched its Black History Month campaign alongside basketball star Chris Paul, who will help minorities learn how to save money.

Featured athletes in the campaign will each select 100 youths and deposit $40 into savings accounts set up on the Goalsetter mobile banking app, the company told CNBC.

Paul will jump-start the campaign by drafting kids from the Club 61 Leadership Alliance in his hometown, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

"Black History Month is a reminder of the hundreds of years that Black people have been a labor force and a consumer class in America," Paul said in a statement. "This partnership is about learning from our history to create a strong future that prepares the next generation of Black and Brown kids to be savers and investors. Financial education is a necessary and critical component of creating an equal America."

Individuals from the National Basketball Players Association, the WNBA, Major League Baseball and National Hockey League will also be asked to support the campaign.

Goalsetter is a mobile banking app that offers peer-to-peer banking transactions. Users can also put funds on its Cashola debit card, which is backed by Mastercard.

The firm announced a $3.9 million seeding round last month. Paul is one of the investors. Former Nickelodeon executive Tanya Van Court is the founder and CEO of Goalsetter.


Watch the video: They are billions - Campaign tech research tree tips and hints (May 2022).