Silicon Valley Fascism
Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (MA) says “red states are getting what’s coming to them” in regards to increasing coronavirus cases and deaths:
This is the latest liberal philosophy in regards to coronavirus: "Red states are, you know, they kind of — they’re getting what was coming to them" pic.twitter.com/Zmjb0V4FXi
— America First (@AmericaFirstPAC) July 31, 2020
So I guess New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts all “got what was coming to them” right?
Is that how this works, or no?
These people clearly hate us and want us dead. It brings them glee and delight when they hear about Floridians and Texans dying of Coronavirus.
So why not just secede from us and be done with it? Take all the Big Blue Cities and secede. You’ll never have to get angry about Florida’s and Texas’ lockdown policies ever again.
It’s not such a bad deal for us. In fact it’s a great deal for us.
Seriously, what is the upside to continuing to share a country with these people who obviously hate us more than they hate any of our foreign rivals? I guarantee you they hate us more than they hate ISIS, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.
The only reason they pretended to hate Russia was because they thought by hyping Russia up as our greatest enemy it would make it that much worse when Trump was inevitably found guilty of #COLLUSION. Notice now they never talk about Russia.
Why should we waste any more time in this failed, toxic relationship?
There is no obvious upside to continuing to share a country with these people. All it causes is resentment and anger.
We have nothing in common anymore. There’s nothing keeping this country together.
If they seceded they could immediately have:
- No more Trump
- Significantly fewer white males
- No more Christian conservatives
- No more immigration laws
- All the abortions they can handle
- No Guns (at least legally-owned guns)
- 🌈🦄😄 Universal free everything for everyone!! 🌈🦄😄
- President Ocasio-Cortez for life
- Trillions and trillions in reparations payments
- No more police
- Decriminalized crime because Laws Are Racist
- Venezuela-level crime rates (see previous two bullet points)
- Mandatory masks, goggles, face shields and hazmat suits 24/7/365
- The freedom to cram as many COVID patients into nursing homes as they wanted without us getting all upset about it
- Mandatory drag queens everywhere
- Statues of black trans women everywhere
- Every month is Pride month
- A completely censored internet where they would never have to hear a dissenting opinion ever again
- Net neutrality
- And much, much more!
If they seceded, we would no longer have to deal with:
- BLM “demonstrators”
- The Democratic Party
- The mainstream media
- The Deep State sabotaging Trump at every step
- The Mask Nazis
- Indefinite lockdowns until there’s a vaccine
- Closed churches, bars, gyms and restaurants while mass rioting is permitted
- Big city vote fraud
- Universal mail-in ballots
- “Ballot harvesting”
- Unchecked illegal immigration
- Diversity lottery program, chain migration, H1B visas, etc.
- Big tech censorship
- Gun control
- The corrupt public school system
- State-funded abortion
- Drag queen story hour
- Tearing down statues
- Erasing US history
- Defunding and slandering the police
- Advertisements like this:
- Tons of other stuff I’m forgetting at the moment. . .
The Wall would go up in a heartbeat, too.
Those are just some of the benefits that we would have to look forward to if the Big Blue Cities were to secede.
The cons are. . . what, exactly? How do we benefit from continuing to share a country with these people? What’s in it for us?
The red counties grow all the food, drill and refine all the oil, and therefore have tons of leverage over the blue cities. They’d pretty much have to give us whatever we want.
I don’t care that our military is more powerful together. I don’t want to invade anybody. We’ll be fine. We have two oceans protecting us. Plus, most of the military recruits come from red states/counties anyway.
We’ll figure the currency thing out. It’ll suck at first, but it’ll sort itself out.
Amazon will keep shipping packages to us, like they do all around the world. Apple will keep selling us their iPhones, like they do all around the world.
Sports will be fine. Half the NHL’s teams are in Canada anyway–we’d be able to maintain the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB with another country added to the mix. Europe does just fine with their soccer leagues.
How do we split the nuclear arsenal up? Easy: whichever country the nuclear bases are located in, that’s who keeps those nukes.
If we split up, they could have their own New Founding Fathers. They could put John Lewis, Obama and St. George Floyd on their New Mount Rushmore. Just let us keep our original Mount Rushmore and all of our history.
If they hate the Founding Fathers of this country so much, then instead of tearing down their statues, why not just secede?
I don’t get why people who hate both Americans and America nevertheless stay here and try to destroy the country from the inside out.
Just secede. Spare yourself the anxiety and rage that comes from having to deal with us on a daily basis.
Go ahead, Rep. Moulton. The United States of BLM is calling your name.
I wrote briefly last night about the Breitbart News livestream–which was not actually organized by Breitbart; Breitbart was only streaming a press conference hosted by Congressman Ralph Norman (R-SC) on the steps of the Supreme Court building. The 45-minute press conference had almost 18 million views before Big Tech banned it.
Breitbart has more on it here. But here’s FB’s reason for taking it down:
“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News.
The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.”
Facebook’s Andy Stone then went on Twitter and delivered a rather creepy message:
I think the “Mark” he was referring to was Zuckerberg. But then that second tweet: Facebook then took the additional step of bombarding people who had viewed the Breitbart video with WHO propaganda.
These are the New Totalitarians of the 21st century: smug, 30-something, low-T tech-bros using sanitized, corporate HR jargon to tell you that your rights have been vaporized.
Twitter went as far as suspending Don Jr.’s account–and then directing him to the WHO’s Reeducation Camp for COVID-19 Dissidents & Thought Criminals:
So naturally, this was trending this morning:
Twitter ultimately made the choice to delete the Breitbart video after it was shared by President Trump:
A few points:
- Twitter removed the video from Trump’s feed. Twitter is now censoring the President and deciding what he can and cannot share with his followers. Big Tech now can stand in between the President and the American People.
- This is the delegitimization of the Presidency. The Presidency is now just a partisan office with zero authority outside of the areas that voted for the President. Big Tech has adopted “Not My President” as its official policy. The President is no longer the head of American government, he’s no longer a public official whose words all Americans should at least heed and take into consideration–he’s merely the Chief Political Adversary for the Other Side.
- Of course, it was completely different when Obama was President. Obama was a non-partisan public servant who was just looking out for the American people. Anytime he spoke it was an Official Message From the US Government, totally nonpartisan and informative. Obama had the best interests of the American people in mind at all times, had zero partisan interests whatsoever, and whether you voted for him or not, you needed to respect the Office of the President.
- Trump does not get that treatment at all. Now, the Presidency has zero legitimacy. Everything Trump says is dismissed as “partisan” or “misinformation,” or of course their go-to, “RAAAACIST!!!!!”
- In the middle of a global pandemic, the President attempts to share helpful information on treatment or even a possible cure with the American. Big Tech shoots it down. Not permitted.
- So now we live in a world where the President is not allowed to communicate directly with the American people, because Big Tech thinks it, rather than Trump, knows what’s best for the American people. If Big Tech doesn’t like what Trump is saying, then sorry, the American people don’t get to hear it.
- “Wrong!” they’ll say. “‘We’re only trying to Combat the Spread of Misinformation™.'” That’s how the benevolent totalitarians always describe their censorship efforts. Not only are they not being evil, they’re doing this for our own good, they tell us. How thoughtful of them. In that case, they should censor even more!
- Except, this virus has been around for less than a year, and they’re claiming the Science™ is already Settled? How convenient for them that anytime they want to censor someone, all they have to do is declare that the Science™ is Settled, the debate is over, and no conflicting opinions are permitted from this point on.
- If licensed, practicing doctors are saying that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for coronavirus, how can you still insist that the Science™ is Settled? The web page for America’s Frontline Doctors has a 29-page report on the efficacy of the drug in treating coronavirus. Is that not Science™?
- A Yale professor said on July 23 that HCQ works and could save lives. Does he not count as a medical expert? Newsweek even published his op-ed:
- When did Twitter/YouTube/Facebook become The Supreme Authorities of Science and Medicine? When did they become greater authorities on Coronavirus than those doctors from the press conference? Well, it turns out they’re simply enforcing what the WHO says as the Supreme Law of the Land. Facebook was “showing messages to people who reacted to, commented on or shared harmful COVID-19-related misinformation. . . connecting them to myths debunked by the WHO.”
- The WHO, which America is no longer a part of as of last month, apparently still has enough reach and influence with Big Tech to censor the president. Big Tech has become a tool of the WHO (which is a branch of the UN).
- So the UN and global tech monopolies just teamed up to overpower and silence the President of the United States. Yes, Big Tech is globalist. They may be based in Silicon Valley, but they obviously have no loyalty or allegiance to the U.S. at all. They, like the rest of the Establishment, are Citizens of the World™.
- World government is already here, people. Trump may have taken America out of the WHO, but the WHO can still exert influence on America through the Big Tech monopolies.
If you still think this is about “stopping the spread of misinformation,” guess again:
That’s a tweet from the WHO on January 14 that said “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of the Coronavirus.
There is a clear and coordinated effort to discredit and discourage the use of HCQ to treat coronavirus patients. It’s not about “stopping the spread of misinformation,” it’s about stopping the spread of accurate information. That’s been the Establishment’s whole mission for the past five years, honestly.
Do you think our elites care about people dying? Of course they don’t.
But it’s not about pure Trump hatred. That’s a part of it, but the larger part of it is to ensure Big Pharma has a monopoly on the Coronavirus vaccine. HCQ is a drug that has been widely available since the 1940s.
If it turns out HCQ cures Coronavirus, then Big Pharma won’t be able to capitalize on the Plannedemic. And we can’t have that.
They’re going to keep telling themselves You Can’t Be Racist Against White People until they have us in death camps:
There’s no anti-white agenda, though. That’s ludicrous to say.
This is the image that’s been going around:
This is apparently what Twitter employees see when they look at someone’s account. This account, the details of which have been redacted, is apparently on a “trends blacklist” and a “search blacklist.”
So Twitter can “blacklist” accounts that it doesn’t want to show up when searched, and it also apparently prevents certain things from trending.
Most people on the right have long suspected that Twitter does this and has been doing it for a long time, but now it’s confirmed.
Theoretically, it would be nice if we lived in a society where all the lowlifes were excluded from things like public transportation, the gym, bars and restaurants, the workplace and other public spaces.
In theory, the idea of a social credit score is great: a scoring system for all Americans to determine the quality of individual people in order to both ensure the bad people don’t ruin everything for the rest of us, and to discourage toxic behavior.
But that’s where the praise ends.
Because a social credit rating system would inevitably be abused to further disenfranchise and immiserate those with the Wrong Views–that’s you and me.
Hell, we’re already being financially blacklisted by the megabanking cartel, attacked in public and censored online.
A social credit rating system would only make it that much easier to make our lives miserable and discourage others from challenging the Uniparty consensus.
The problem isn’t the idea of a social credit rating system–the problem is who would be in charge of it, and how they would inevitably abuse the system.
Unfortunately, I’m sure you know where this is going: a social credit system in some form already exists here in America.
No longer a “conspiracy theory,” Fast Company just ran an article detailing the many ways in which Americans are already subjected to a Chinese-style social credit rating system:
“Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government.
In place since 2014, the social credit system is a work in progress that could evolve by next year into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens, akin to a financial credit score. It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.
It can also award points for charitable donations or even taking one’s own parents to the doctor.Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist.
China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.”
And it’s already here:
“Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.
The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money.”
These insurance scammers will never stop thinking of ways to avoid paying you out. But the insurance example is pretty tame and not all that surprising to learn about.
Nor is the fact that Uber and Airbnb not only have driver ratings but also rider ratings, which means you.
But this technology, called “PatronScan,” is something I’d never heard of before reading this article:
“PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)
Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.
PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.”
You can see how easily PatronScan will be expanded beyond just the bar and restaurant industry. It’ll be everywhere before long.
And these are just a few examples of the private company-enacted social credit scoring that we know of. We have a good idea of what big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon are already doing to discourage dissident political views, but I’m sure we don’t know the full extent of it.
Nor do we know exactly what’s coming next. For instance, this:
But the main thing the leftwing companies will come after is your money: expect a future where the wrong political views will cost you a well-paying job.
The choice will be simple: get in line with the Globalist Uniparty Agenda or live in squalor, barely able to feed yourself.
The Constitution is now basically irrelevant because it’s not the government doing the oppressing, it’s private tech monopolies
April 2012: US President Barack Obama says Google and Facebook would not exist without government funding during remarks on the budget battle with House Republicans:
“Obama made the remark at a campaign fundraiser while criticizing the budget passed by House Republicans. Obama said the Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would, among other things, cut funding for research.
“I believe in investing in basic research and science because I understand that all these extraordinary companies that are these enormous wealth-generators — many of them would have never been there; Google, Facebook would not exist, had it not been for investments that we made as a country in basic science and research,” Obama said. “I understand that makes us all better off.”
Barack Obama himself admitted that the government helped Google and Facebook get off the ground. The government was present at the beginning when both companies were created.
Let’s play a game of “What’s More Likely?” Is it more likely that the government funded and assisted the origins of Facebook and Google purely out of the goodness of the its heart? Or is it more likely that the government helped start Facebook and Google because they’d be able to assist the government in achieving its goals in areas like mass-surveillance, “counterterrorism” (itself largely a guise for mass-surveillance) and military intelligence?
“But that’s just a nutty conspiracy theory!”
Really? Almost everyone knows (or at least should know) the US Government’s Military/Intelligence community created the internet via its ARPANET project dating back to the late 1960s. Al Gore in 1999 claimed to have “taken the initiative in creating the Internet” during his time in Congress. Though his remark is often lampooned, it still speaks to the widely-acknowledged truth that the Internet was created by the government. Al Gore is mocked because he tried to take personal credit for inventing the internet, not because he said the government created the internet.
Starting from there, why would it be so hard to believe that any of the major companies that dominate the internet today are also of government origin?
For some reason it’s a stretch to believe the government invented Facebook and Google, but it’s not a stretch at all to believe the government invented the internet itself–which it did.
What’s more likely: that the government invented the internet and then just stopped, totally backed off and said, “Okay, American people: This is all for you. We’re done here. Go wild!” Or that the government invented the internet and then continued using it and expanding it and developing an array of internet-based programs that would help the government–specifically its Military/Intelligence divisions–achieve its goals?
“But if Facebook and Google are government fronts, that means they’re lying to us!”
Yes, because of course the Uniparty Oligarchy would never lie to you.
“But I saw the Facebook movie! It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg!”
Right, because Hollywood would never lie to you either.
February 4, 2004, Wired Magazine: “Pentagon Kills LifeLog Project“. What was LifeLog? It sounds an awful lot like Facebook:
“THE PENTAGON CANCELED its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person’s entire existence.”
“Run by DARPA, the Defense Department’s research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.”
Facebook is not quite as intrusive into your personal life as LifeLog aspired to be. But it’s pretty close; Facebook checks many of the boxes the Pentagon hoped LifeLog would. Read Cosmo Magazine? Like their page! Watch Game of Thrones? Like its Facebook page! Why would the government need a record of all the plane tickets you’ve bought when people can’t wait to post pictures of every place they visit? If you’re from Florida and you post a picture of yourself in Times Square, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that you bought a plane ticket to New York.
“LifeLog’s backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring , arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.”
As if that wasn’t the point all along.
“Researchers close to the project say they’re not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn’t provided an explanation for LifeLog’s quiet cancellation. “A change in priorities” is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.”
Abrupt cancellation in late January 2004 due to “a change in priorities”? How about a change in the name: guess what also happened on February 4, 2004, the same day Wired published its article about the Pentagon killing the LifeLog project?
Also from the Wired piece:
“Private-sector research in this area is proceeding. At Microsoft, for example, minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell’s program, MyLifeBits, continues to develop ways to sort and store memories.
David Karger, Shrobe’s colleague at MIT, thinks such efforts will still go on at Darpa, too. “I am sure that such research will continue to be funded under some other title,” wrote Karger in an e-mail. “I can’t imagine DARPA ‘dropping out’ of such a key research area.”
Karger was right. LifeLog wasn’t canceled. It simply became Facebook.
It’s obvious why the government would rather keep its involvement in Facebook quiet: when you’re asking people to voluntarily share almost every detail of their personal lives, they’re much more likely to do so if it’s with a cool start-up tech company than an explicitly government-run program like LifeLog.
Facebook has convinced people to share where they live, their political and religious views, a list of their friends and acquaintances, hundreds and thousands of personal photos, and provide updates of not only everything they’re doing but everything they’re thinking. Facebook’s algorithms are so advanced that it can find people you know in real life but aren’t friends with on Facebook, and even automatically detect your face in photographs you haven’t been tagged in.
And you’re telling me the government wants nothing to do with Facebook?
In a few short years, not only hundreds of millions of Americans but billions of people around the world willingly handed over more personal information to Facebook than any government intelligence agency could ever dream of obtaining over the course of decades and decades of good old fashioned spying.
Facebook is the intelligence community’s dream program. With the invention of Facebook, all the sudden old-fashioned spying no longer really became all that necessary to obtain information on people. You can just go on their Facebook page and find almost anything you want to know.
And the best part for the government is, people are doing it willingly because all their friends are doing it.
So all together, between Facebook’s social media empire of its namesake site, Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp, this company has more data on more people than all the spy agencies in the world put together.
Do you really believe a 20-year-old computer nerd built the most expansive intelligence database in history and the government had nothing to do with it?
Let’s put it this way: if the government isn’t currently using Facebook to easily and effortlessly conduct mass surveillance on us, then we have the most bumbling, oblivious, idiotic and incompetent government ever.
“But what if Zuckerberg simply told the government to fuck off when it tried to commandeer Facebook? Facebook is a private company!”
First of all, the government would not come asking Facebook to kindly hand over everything after Facebook was already built up into one of the world’s largest corporations. The government would have gotten to Facebook years ago. If the government was not already in Facebook at the beginning, someone from the Pentagon or CIA would have taken notice very early in Facebook’s lifespan–say 2005, 2006, 2007. They would have strong-armed Facebook right at the beginning after recognizing its staggering potential.
Again, that’s if they weren’t in on Facebook from the very beginning.
The point is, it’s nearly impossible to believe the government simply stood by for the past 15 years and allowed Facebook to amass all the power it has.
But another problem is the assumption that Zuckerberg, and private companies in general, even have the ability to tell the government to fuck off. Do you really think the Pentagon is going to be told to fuck off by a college computer nerd?
The government can do whatever the hell it wants. If you have something the government wants, or needs, it can take it from you. The principle of “eminent domain” does not only apply to private landowners having their land seized by the government to build a freeway overpass on. It applies to virtually anything including private businesses.
Most people know the Fifth Amendment from the “right to remain silent” and not self-incriminate, but most people don’t know the Fifth Amendment also permits the government to seize private property at will. Here’s the full text of the Fifth Amendment with the relevant parts highlighted:
“No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation….[E]xcept in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger…in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary….”
The relevant part for our purposes here: “No person shall be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation.”
The Constitution itself allows the government to oblige individuals to relinquish their private property so long as the government pays “just compensation.” And don’t construe this “just compensation” clause to mean “the government has to make you a fair offer for your private property.” Not at all. What it means is, when the government comes to take your property, they have to say, “We’re taking your property, here’s some money for your troubles.” You don’t have the option to say no. It’s not an offer.
I bet most people don’t even know this is in the Constitution.
And with the greatly expanded government powers since 9/11 to act in the name of “national security,” even if the government didn’t already have eminent domain power, do you really think the government couldn’t simply seize control of Facebook in the interest of national security? And this would have been done over a decade ago.
Okay, so you still don’t believe the government is behind Facebook. You consider it believable that the government allowed a 20-year-old nerd to build the most expansive surveillance database in history. You believe the government stood idly by for 15 years while Facebook grew from one user to 2.8 billion. You believe our government is so bumbling and dimwitted that it never recognized and co-opted the incredible power of Facebook all this time.
But do you believe other countries’ governments are all equally as bumbling, incompetent and behind-the-times?
Because if our government had never gotten to Facebook, then Russian intelligence would have. And early, too. If not Russia, then the Chinese government. Or perhaps the British would have stepped in and saved our monumentally stupid government from itself before it allowed the greatest surveillance tool in history to fall into the hands of the Russians or the Chinese. They would all have recognized the incredible potential of Facebook in the highly unlikely event our government didn’t.
But apparently it’s believable that none of the most powerful governments on the planet recognized Facebook’s power early on and took control of it because, I guess, “the government doesn’t understand computers.” Yes, only Mark Zuckerberg understands computers. He’s smarter and more forward-thinking than the full might of the Pentagon and the CIA put together. And the Russian FSB. And M15. And Chinese intelligence. They’re all just a bunch of dumb government bureaucrats who “don’t understand computers” and Silicon Valley is to this day lightyears ahead of all of them.
Utter nonsense. Our government created the internet itself. If you think the government is too doddering and old-fashioned to have recognized the potential for Facebook early on, you’re high. For crying out loud, as we just went over above, the Pentagon had the idea for Facebook in early 2003. Even if you stubbornly believe it’s merely a massive coincidence that Facebook came about right around the time the Pentagon was developing its LifeLog project, there is still indisputable evidence that the government had the idea for Facebook well over 15 years ago.
So that would mean that the government had the idea for Facebook, was beaten to the punch by Mark Zuckerberg, a 20-year-old college computer nerd, and then never lifted a finger while Zuckerberg turned Facebook into the greatest surveillance tool in history over the course of 15+ years, even though it had the power to seize Facebook at any point along the way.
When you get around to thinking about Facebook and its relationship with the government, it’s actually far more difficult to believe the government doesn’t control it than that it does.
In light of everything discussed here, when you ask the question, “Does the government own Facebook?” it’s almost impossible to conceive a situation where it doesn’t.
The only way someone could still, after all that, believe Facebook is a private company and not a cut-out of the federal government, is if they are desperate not to believe it. Perhaps some people are not yet ready to reckon with the fact that this country is a lot less free than they’ve been led to believe their entire lives.
That’s understandable. It’s a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you’ve been a daily user of Facebook over the past 10+ years.
As we’ve seen above, it defies nearly all logic and common sense to believe the federal government is not deeply involved in Facebook.
But where’s the actual evidence? Sure, the theory makes a ton of sense, but where’s the actual connection? If the Zuckerberg Story is a myth, then what’s the real story?
That story begins with a venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel. Like most venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel invests in promising tech startups, finding them in their early stages and providing them with crucial funding so that they can realize their full potential.
But unlike all the other venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel is unique in that it is owned by the CIA. From the Wikipedia page:
“In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and known as In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability. The name, “In-Q-Tel” is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond. In-Q-Tel’s mission is to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve United States national security interests.”
Even though this is all public information, most Americans are probably unaware that the CIA has its own venture capital firm designed to invest early in the latest tech companies and products that can potentially be of use to the Intelligence Community.
Former CIA Director George Tenet stated of In-Q-Tel:
“CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them.”
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, well before Facebook was founded. Assuming the folks in charge of In-Q-Tel weren’t completely incompetent, they would have almost certainly identified Facebook very early on and put the CIA’s money behind it. After all, In-Q-Tel was founded to do just that.
So did In-Q-Tel invest in Facebook early on? Well, there’s no direct evidence that they did, but from what we do know, it seems likely:
“As far back as 2005, The Washington Post reported that virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inventor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data had probably received a phone call from In-Q-Tel or at least been Googled by its staff of technology watchers.
One company that happened to be very hungry for startup capital in 2005 was Facebook. Facebook was launched in February 2004 from the Harvard dorm room of Mark Zuckerberg and friends.
The company received its first capital injection of $500,000 from Peter Thiel that summer. The next two capital injections were $12.7 million from Thiel and Accel Partners in May 2005 and then $27.5 million from an Accel-led round of financing that included Thiel, Accel and Greylock Partners in April 2006.
Just for fun, I searched for each of those investors and In-Q-Tel at the same time.
Here is what I found:
Peter Thiel — Took In-Q-Tel funding for his startup firm Palantir somewhere around 2004.
Accel Partners — In 2004, Accel partner James Breyer sat on the board of directors of military defense contractor BBN with In-Q-Tel’s CEO Gilman Louie.
Greylock Partners — Howard Cox, the head of Greylock, served directly on In-Q-Tel’s board of directors.
Now, I’m not saying that the CIA or In-Q-Tel had any direct involvement with Facebook.”
“All I’m saying is that it appears to me that the key early investors in Facebook had direct relationships with In-Q-Tel or In-Q-Tel’s top management at the same time that Facebook was raising capital…
I’m also saying that at this very same time, In-Q-Tel was a company that was very, very interested in gathering the kind of data that Facebook would have to offer. I have not seen any evidence that In-Q-Tel made an investment in Facebook, but if I had In-Q-Tel’s connections at the time Facebook was searching for capital, I probably would have made a phone call to one young Mark Zuckerberg.”
The Facebook-In-Q-Tel connection centers around that guy James Breyer. Breyer, according to his Wikipedia page, is a venture capitalist worth over $2.4 billion largely due to his early investments in Facebook.
“Accel Partners was Facebook’s biggest shareholder after Mark Zuckerberg, owning an 11% stake at the time of the company’s 2012 IPO. In 2005, Breyer led Accel Partners’ $12.7 million deposit at a $98 million valuation in the then ten-employee startup Facebook. Breyer also led the 2004 management buyout of BBN Technologies from Verizon.”
Breyer was the second-largest shareholder in Facebook behind Mark Zuckerberg when the company went public in 2012. Breyer got in at the very beginning for Facebook, and during that time in 2004, Breyer was also involved in the buyout of BBN Technologies, where a man named Gilman Louie sat on the board of directors. Gilman Louie is best known for serving as the first CEO of In-Q-Tel. So at the same time Breyer was investing millions in Facebook, he sat on the board of directors of BBN Technologies with the CEO of In-Q-Tel, making it highly likely Breyer’s investments in Facebook were made partially on behalf of In-Q-Tel.
And yet, when you look through the list of In-Q-Tel’s investments–available on its Wikipedia page–the name Facebook does not appear. Why is In-Q-Tel listed as an early investor in dozens of different companies, but not Facebook?
Well, it’s pretty obvious why the CIA would want to keep its involvement in Facebook secret and without a clear paper trail. The whole idea of Facebook is to get people to willingly share their personal information, and that goal would be hampered pretty significantly if there were a clear, public connection between Facebook and the CIA.
In other words, the CIA–I mean In-Q-Tel–is happy to inform you of its investment in tech companies you’ve never heard of like MemSQL, Destineer, Forterra and Lingotek. But it certainly wouldn’t behoove the CIA to publicize its involvement in Facebook. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of Facebook, doesn’t it?
It seems highly likely that the CIA was involved in Facebook early on through investors like James Breyer, Howard Cox and Peter Thiel, all of whom were connected to In-Q-Tel. These guys all got stupidly rich off of Facebook, but most likely they were investing on behalf of In-Q-Tel in order to muddle the CIA’s connection to the social network. The CIA doesn’t care who gets rich off its investments in Facebook; the CIA was after the technology and access to Facebook those investors enabled.
My guess is that the Pentagon was working on LifeLog since at least early 2003 and essentially merged the project with a little tech startup called Facebook after Zuckerberg was discovered by In-Q-Tel. I would assume Facebook has been sharing everything with the government since 2004. I sincerely doubt Facebook would have become what it is today without the government’s early involvement.
Zuckerberg, for his part, has kept quiet about the government’s involvement because he got insanely rich from Facebook, and because spilling the beans would put his company and his billions in jeopardy. He has everything to lose from revealing the truth.
So what about Google?
Fortunately for us, Google’s involvement with the CIA is much clearer than Facebook’s. We don’t have to speculate all that much.
In 2015, Nafeez Ahmed, a British investigative journalist who formerly wrote for the Guardian and VICE, published a long piece entitled “How the CIA Made Google.” It’s a fascinating story that you should read in full, but here are the relevant excerpts detailing the CIA’s oversight of the work of a Stanford computer science student named Sergey Brin, the man who would go on to found Google with Larry Page:
“In 1994 two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
But that’s just one side of the story.
Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research program on information security and data-mining.”
Google, like Facebook, is yet another Tech Fairytale of a couple of nerds who seemingly created world-changing technology and founded multi-billion dollar megacorporations essentially by accident:
“Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems [MDDS] initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.
“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”
The government was in on Google from the very beginning:
“In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”
In other words, exactly what Google became.
“In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community’s MDDS program that had been presented to the “Annual Intelligence Community Symposium” in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA’s Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community’s Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3–4 million dollars per year for 3–4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (standing for the CIA’s Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.
Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:
“In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”
Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser.”
I’m sure the government was so proud of Sergey Brin and his work, which it funded, and expected nothing at all in return from him. I’m sure the Intelligence Community’s involvement with Google stopped in 1998.
That’s what Thuraisingham essentially tried to claim when Ahmed’s article was first published in 2015:
“There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed’s article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a ‘sensitive’ program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.”
“Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham’s accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of ‘query flocks’ is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.
However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time.”
Thuraisingham cleverly tries to claim the MDDS program never funded Google knowing full well that’s not what Ahmed is saying: he’s saying MDDS funded Brin’s research which later became Google.
“Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never “reported” to her or the CIA’s Steinheiser, but admits he “gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.” It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation—either way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin’s development of Google.”
Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as “unclassified,” but this does not contradict its “sensitive” nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including ‘sensitive but unclassified.’ A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA’s MDDS initiative suggests that although the program was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents were considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimize transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community.
Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence’s CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were “DoD, IC, and other government organizations”: the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.
In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin’s work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.”
Again, I highly recommend reading Ahmed’s entire piece. It’s long but I’ve included the most relevant parts for our purposes here. In a later section he details how the Pentagon had been funding Stanford’s computer science department dating back to the 1970s in search of programs that could be of great use to the military and the IC. My impression is that the Pentagon also seeded some other successful software projects that went on to become major corporations during that period–such as SUN Microsystems and Granite, which was eventually absorbed by Cisco Systems–but it only truly hit the jackpot in the late 1990s with Google.
The main point here is that not only was the CIA, represented by Rick Steinheiser, funding Brin’s project which would eventually become Google, Brin was directly reporting to Steinheiser and giving him periodic updates on the search project all the way up until the moment Google was incorporated in September 1998.
Now, tell me what’s more likely to have happened after Brin founded Google in 1998: Steinheiser and Thuraisingham proudly watched their little baby bird, Brin, spread his wings and fly away from the Pentagon-funded nest to found his world-changing company, never to speak again. Or that the CIA and other Pentagon departments remained as heavily intertwined with Google after its official founding as they had been during the research and development stage?
It defies belief to claim the CIA and the Pentagon were simply funding Sergey’s School Science Project and were just so gosh darn proud of him when he turned it into Google. They watched from afar like proud parents as Google went on to make hundreds of billions of dollars and dominate the internet. That’s basically what Thuraisingham is saying. “We were just fascinated by Sergey’s School Project! That’s all!”
The fundamental difference, in my understanding of things, between the government’s involvement in Google and its involvement in Facebook is that Google was originally intended to primarily help the Pentagon efficiently manage, process and and navigate its massive computer and data networks. The fact that Google had immense potential for civilian and commercial use was, if not incidental, then at least secondary: at first, the military/IC just wanted a way to easily and efficiently navigate its enormous database of information in the earliest years of the computer/internet era.
But Facebook, on the other hand, was a fundamentally post-9/11 idea: Facebook, from its very beginning as LifeLog, was designed with spying and mass surveillance in mind. It was only after 9/11 that the federal government became obsessed with data collection and monitoring people. The Pentagon had to figure out how to use the internet to nail the next big terrorist cell before it committed another 9/11. And so that’s how the “database for people” idea was born.
Of course, this isn’t to say that surveillance and monitoring never crossed anybody at the Pentagon or CIA’s mind when they were working with/on Google during the pre-9/11 era. This QZ article explains how as early as 1995, the CIA was interested in finding a way to organize the “World Wide Web” in such a way that terrorists and bad actors could be easily identified and tracked based on what they were doing online:
“The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called “birds of a feather:” Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online. The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing, and the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” took place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in the spring of 1995.
Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could “birds of a feather” be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?
By working with emerging commercial-data companies, their intent was to track like-minded groups of people across the internet and identify them from the digital fingerprints they left behind, much like forensic scientists use fingerprint smudges to identify criminals. Just as “birds of a feather flock together,” they predicted that potential terrorists would communicate with each other in this new global, connected world—and they could find them by identifying patterns in this massive amount of new information. Once these groups were identified, they could then follow their digital trails everywhere.”
So Google was ordained with some degree of surveillance/counterterrorism potential in mind, even in the pre-9/11 era. And this is what makes it all the more likely that the government maintained a close relationship–perhaps even control–with Google after its founding in 1998. But while Google had potential for surveillance, my point is that Facebook is different in that its sole purpose from the start was surveillance. Google was designed to be a way to turn a vast digital ocean of information into an easily navigable and organized database, while Facebook was designed from the start to be a massive database of people.
Which only makes it more likely that Facebook has been run by the CIA from the start. It just makes sense: it built off of the central idea of Google–which is to turn the internet into a massive, easily navigable database–and simply applied it to people.
I’ll admit that it wasn’t until quite recently that I began seriously entertaining the idea that Facebook and Google were not only functioning as arms of the political elite, but were literally founded and directly operated by the political elite.
It was obvious they were on the same side as the Establishment, and working toward the same ends, but I never considered the possibility that they were straight-up Chinese-style State-Owned Enterprises.
I’ll outline my evolution on this line of thinking:
- First I thought Big Corporations had become more powerful than the government.
- Then I slowly realized, mainly after reading this book, that there are no accidents in politics. That means the Big Corporations, including those in Silicon Valley, only got as big and powerful as they are because the government wanted them to–or, if you prefer, did not stop them from getting so powerful. The government is not a bystander. Barack Obama did the most to promote this idea of the Bystander President and Government that doesn’t have much control over anything at all. Obama was always claiming he heard of his administration’s scandals “in the news,” and shared your anger for his administration’s mishandling of this and that. The common theme was that even though he was President, he was still a bystander who didn’t have much control over anything. This is the opposite of the truth, but it’s exactly what the government wants you to believe.
- From bailouts to tax breaks to direct funding by the Pentagon and CIA, the government has its fingerprints on all the big corporations. You only get to be a Big Corporation if you’re either A. willingly doing what the government wants you to do, or B. you were simply created by the federal government itself. Sometimes it’s both A & B.
- Why does the government have Big Corporations doing its bidding? Simple: because while the government is constrained in many areas by the Constitution, the private sector is not. The government may not be able to kill free speech, but Facebook and Google certainly can. Plus, regular Americans are largely oblivious to the fact that they’re being tyrannized by the Big Corporations. It’s not as obvious as when the government does it. If Congress passed a law dictating what people can and cannot say on social media, there would immediately be a public outcry over free speech. The law would be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. This is why they’ve outsourced their assault on free speech to Silicon Valley cut-outs. Regular Americans are far less likely to be skeptical of Big Business™ than they are the government.
It’s funny how our minds work:
“Give up all my personal information to the government? HELL NO!”
“Give up all my personal information to Facebook? Sign me up!”
Americans are largely under the impression that they’re free. No matter what they learn about their government–whether it be about the WMDs in Iraq, the fabricating of evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria as an excuse to go to war, the NSA’s widespread spying and surveillance program, or the Deep State-produced Russiagate Hoax that facilitated the Obama administration’s unprecedented weaponization of the intelligence community to spy on the Trump Presidential campaign–Americans still believe they’re free from tyranny.
This is because Facebook is called “Facebook” rather than the Federal Database of Personal Information on All Americans.
This is because Google is called a “Google” rather than “Tell The Government Every Thought That Has Ever Crossed Your Mind Dot Com.”
Way back in 2011, The Onion realized that Facebook was clearly a government project designed to conduct mass surveillance on Americans. The Onion is a parody site, but this hilarious clip hits the nail square on the head:
This clip would be hilarious if it wasn’t true.
If this actually goes all the way, it will be perhaps the most important thing President Trump has done and will do during his tenure. Megacorporations are killing free speech in this country right before our eyes and something must be done about it.
Wall Street seems to believe the Silicon Valley giants are in trouble:
“Google parent Alphabet Inc., Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. tumbled as the companies appear set to undergo U.S. antitrust probes after the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission agreed to split up oversight of technology giants.
The DOJ’s preparations to investigate Google, first reported late Friday, mark the Trump administration’s first concrete step to scrutinize the potentially anti-competitive conduct of a large technology firm. On Monday, a person familiar with the matter said the FTC will oversee antitrust scrutiny into whether Facebook’s practices harm competition in the digital market. Reuters reported that the DOJ has been given jurisdiction over a potential probe of Apple.
Alphabet fell as much as 7.2% to $1,027.03 in New York, its lowest since January. Facebook tumbled as much as 9.3% to $161.01, the most since July. The news also sent shares of Amazon.com Inc. down as much as 5.4% and Apple as much as 2.7%.”
You probably noticed Amazon was among the companies that fell even though they were not one of the ones named as being under investigation. But Amazon looks likely to join the club:
“Amazon could also be scrutinized as a result of a new agreement between regulators that puts it under the jurisdiction of the FTC, the Washington Post reported over the weekend.”
All told, the tech giants lost a combined $137 billion in market cap on the news that they’re likely to come under antitrust investigation:
— Bloomberg (@business) June 3, 2019
Facebook has seen this coming for a while now. A Business Insider article from May 12 detailed Facebook’s recent antitrust lawyer hiring spree.
Here’s the problem for Facebook: all the expensive lawyers in the world can’t change the fact that Facebook is a monopoly and needs to be broken up. They can and certainly will try, but the truth is the truth.
And if Facebook and Co. prevail and manage not to be broken up, it will not mean that they are not monopolies, but rather that justice was not done.
Outside of immigration, Big Tech Fascism is the issue of our time. Free speech itself is at risk if these Tech Giants are permitted to exist in their current forms and pursue their current policies.
The First Amendment only protects us from the government. It doesn’t protect us from private corporations like Facebook and Google, and so they have been conducting a digital purge of dissident voices, shadowbanning and outright banning any and all individuals who do not preach Politically Correct Values.
If the Tech Giants are ultimately broken up, it will take years of investigation and subsequent legal battles before it actually happens.
In the meantime, Trump and Congress must declare that, given their ubiquity and importance in modern American life, social media platform access is not a privilege bestowed to select individuals by all-powerful, unaccountable corporations, but rather a civil right guaranteed for all.
Furthermore, we must guarantee that individuals on social media platforms cannot be discriminated against because of their political views. This means that shadowbanning, burying in the search results, and de-monetizing due to political views must also not be allowed.
Because the main problem with the Silicon Valley giants is not that they’re monopolies. There have been many monopolies in American history that did not infringe on Americans’ natural and civil rights. For all the reasons they were ultimately broken up, Ma Bell and Standard Oil weren’t silencing political dissidents and enforcing nationwide conformity to the Establishment’s preferred political agenda. US Steel was not controlling and manipulating Americans’ exposure to news and information with the intent of
This is what makes the 21st century monopolies wholly different beasts from the monopolies of the past. Yes, the Tech Giants need to be broken up, but it’s foolish to think doing that alone will solve all our problems.
The fundamental problem is that these gigantic companies are a far-leftwing ideological hivemind hellbent on stamping out every last person who doesn’t share their views. Breaking the 4-5 of them up into dozens of smaller companies will only result in dozens of far-leftwing companies that still represent an ideological hivemind hellbent on stamping out every last person who doesn’t share their views.
In other words, making YouTube leave Google and become its own company doesn’t guarantee YouTube will no longer be biased against conservatives.
There still has to be an expansion of the First Amendment that guarantees platform access and freedom from discrimination due to political views as civil rights for all.
Today I installed the Duck Duck Go extension for Google Chrome browser. My default search engine is now DuckDuckGo and I didn’t even have to switch browsers. I guess another feature of the DuckDuckGo extension is that it also blocks advertisers from tracking you. But mainly I installed the extension for the search engine.
I’ve been using Google Chrome as my default browser for years even though I’m fully aware Google is an evil corporation working to silence people like me. The thing is, I’m used to the browser and the search engine, and it’s so convenient to have the search bar right at the top of the screen at all times. Plus I have all my bookmarks and passwords saved on Chrome so switching to something else would be a hassle.
In the past I’ve used the DuckDuckGo search engine here and there for when I really need real search results as opposed to Google’s politically biased search results, but this required Google searching “DuckDuckGo” and then searching from DuckDuckGo, and that was kind of annoying so I didn’t do it often.
But now that you can set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine on Google Chrome I’ll be using DuckDuckGo exclusively.
From what I gather DuckDuckGo provides completely unbiased search results, meaning its algorithms show you results that are the closest thing to what you searched, rather than what the company behind the search engine wants you to see.
What prompted me to make the switch was when I Google searched for an article on this site and got no relevant results.
Then I searched for just “Today in Politics” on Google and my site didn’t even show up:
Wow. Awesome. As far as Google is concerned, this website doesn’t even exist.
So then I searched my site on DuckDuckGo, which I’ve used several times in the past and came away with a favorable impression because I thought its results were superior to those I got from Google. On DuckDuckGo, when you search “Today in Politics,” the site called “Today in Politics” is one of the top three results. Go figure.
Look at that. There I am, third from the top.
So one of these three scenarios is true:
- Google is biased against me and is either pushing my website down the list in its search results or filtering me out entirely, while DuckDuckGo is biased in favor of me and is pushing my website up the list in its search results.
- Or, DuckDuckGo is simply unbiased and bases its results solely on relevancy to the terms searched, while Google is negatively biased against me and bases its results not on pure relevancy to the terms searched but on its own political agenda.
Now, given that I don’t know a single person working at DuckDuckGo it’s highly unlikely they’ve decided to randomly do my website a solid and boost me up in the search results. This then makes scenario 1 highly unlikely.
That means scenario 2 is almost undoubtedly true.
So the conclusion is twofold:
- If you like this site and read it regularly, I highly recommend switching your default search engine to DuckDuckGo.
- More generally, if you don’t like the idea of Google manipulating the search results it shows you to fit Google’s political agenda, and if you find it sort of terrifying that Google is basically the gatekeeper standing in between you and the vast ocean of content and information that is the internet, then I encourage you to switch to DuckDuckGo as your default search engine.
It really is scary to think that Google can control what you know. When we want to know the answer to something these days, we search it on Google.
But if Google thinks You Can’t Handle The Truth, it will either manipulate its search results to filter out all the the sites that will actually give you the truth, ensuring you never learn the truth, or it will direct you to a Uniparty-Approved website full of propaganda and lies meant to brainwash you.
On top of all this, there’s the very real possibility that Google, again a very evil corporation, is keeping track of everything you search so that one day it can/will use it against you.
Imagine one day in the not-so-distant future, when the Democrats finally repeal the First Amendment and this nation goes full totalitarian police state: the Uniparty Government is conducting purges of dissidents, and Google is passing along your search history to the government to help root out Enemies Of The State. A Google employee tips the Secret Police off to the fact that you’ve searched for things like “Breitbart News” or “how to donate to Trump’s reelection campaign” and then, the next night, you hear a loud knock at the door and are dragged off to a gulag, never to be heard from again.
Bottom line: it is now easier than ever to wean off of our Google Dependency. For your own good, switch your default browser to DuckDuckGo ASAP.
Remember what free speech was like? Good times.
My @facebook page has been suspended for 7 days for posting that white supremacy is not a threat to black America, as much as father absence and & liberal policies that incentivize it, are.
I am censored for posting the poverty rates in fatherless homes. pic.twitter.com/Yh9DSW6DPk
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 17, 2019
Sorry, Ms. Owens: You are not allowed to say this.
If you can’t read the post, here’s what it says:
“Poverty rate among blacks: 22%.
Poverty rate among whites: 11%.
Poverty rate among MARRIED blacks: 7%.
Do not let liberal supremacists convince you that white people are the problem at the same time that their policies encourage the 77% father absence rate in black households.”
Where’s the falsehood? It’s unclear but for some reason this “violated Facebook’s community standards.”
Translation: you’re not allowed to bring those facts to light.
Wouldn’t want black people to get the idea that the Democrats have done far more damage to the black community than white supremacists.
Pure political censorship.