Big Tech's Greatest Threat
"Ephemeral experiences": You might never have heard this phrase, but it's a very important concept. These are brief experiences you have online in which content appears briefly and then disappears, leaving no trace. Those are the kinds of experiences we have been preserving in our election monitoring projects. You can't see the search results that Google was showing you last month. They're not stored anywhere, so they leave no paper trail for authorities to trace. Ephemeral experiences are, it turns out, quite a powerful tool of manipulation.
Are people at companies like Google aware of the power they have? Absolutely...
In a national study we conducted in 2013, in one demographic group -- moderate Republicans -- we got a shift of 80% after just one search, so some people are especially trusting of search results, and Google knows this. The company can easily manipulate undecided voters using techniques like this....
We have shown in controlled experiments that biased search suggestions can turn a 50‑50 split among undecided voters into a 90‑10 split, with no one having the slightest idea they have been manipulated.
Unfortunately, people mistakenly believe that computer output must be impartial and objective. People especially trust Google to give them accurate results.... They have no idea that they may have been driven to that web page by highly biased search results that favor the candidate Google is supporting.
Dwight D. Eisenhower did not talk about his accomplishments in his famous farewell speech of 1961. Instead, he warned us about the rise of a "technological elite" who could control public policy without anyone knowing. He warned us about a future in which democracy would be meaningless. What I have to tell you is this: The technological elite are now in control. You just don't know it. Big Tech had the ability to shift 15 million votes in 2020 without anyone knowing that they did so and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace. Our calculations suggest that they actually shifted at least six million votes to President Biden without people knowing. This makes the free-and-fair election -- a cornerstone of democracy -- an illusion.
I am not a conservative, so I should be thrilled about what these companies are doing. But no one should be thrilled, no matter what one's politics. No private company should have this kind of power, even if, at the moment, they happen to be supporting your side.
Do these companies think they are in charge? Are they planning a future that only they know for all of us? Unfortunately, there are many indications that the answers to these questions are yes.
One of the items that leaked from Google in 2018 was an eight‑minute video called "The Selfish Ledger." This video was never meant to be seen outside of Google, and it is about the power that Google has to reshape humanity, to create computer software that "not only tracks our behavior but offers direction towards a desired result."
How do we protect ourselves from companies like this?... You might have heard the phrase "regulatory capture" -- an old practice in which a large company that is facing punishment from the government works with the government to come up with a regulatory plan that suits the company.
When you are talking about, for example, "breaking up" Google, all this means is that we will force them to sell off a couple of the hundreds of companies they have bought.... the major shareholders are enriched by billions of dollars, and the company still has the same power and poses the same threats it does today....
[W]e were, in effect, doing the same thing to them that they do to us and our children 24 hours a day. Imagine that we were, in effect, looking over the shoulders of thousands of real people (with their permission), just as the Nielsen Company does with its network of families to monitor their television watching.
Imagine if these tech companies knew that they were being monitored -- that even the answers they are giving people... were being monitored. Do you think they would risk sending out targeted vote reminders to members of just one political party? I doubt it very much, because we would catch them immediately and report their manipulation to authorities and the media.
What can we do? In my opinion, the solution to almost all the problems these companies present is to set up large‑scale monitoring systems and to make them permanent -- not just in the United States, but around the world. Because monitoring is technology, it can keep up with whatever the new tech companies are throwing at us, and however they are threatening us, we can get them to stop.
I am envisioning a new nonprofit organization that specializes in monitoring what the tech companies are showing to voters, families, and children -- protecting democracy and the autonomy and independence of all citizens. There might also be a for‑profit spinoff that could serve as a permanent funding source for the nonprofit. The for‑profit spinoff could provide commercial services to campaigns, law firms, candidates, researchers, and many others.
And there's another way to completely eliminate the threats that Google poses to democracy and humanity.... our government could quickly end Google's monopoly on search by declaring that the database Google uses to generate search results is a "public commons," accessible to all. It is a very old legal concept, and it is a light-touch form of regulation. It would rapidly lead to the creation of thousands of competing search platforms, each appealing to different audiences.
by Mordechai Sones
AFLDS, March 25, 2021: America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.| “Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, ... that’s what I interpret to be an evil act. |
| “You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. |
| “My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus. For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death to how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated. |
| “I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. |
| “For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world's population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it. “It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.” |
Because, of course, a 22 year-old graduate in Whiteness Studies sitting in Twitter’s HQ in Silicon Valley knows much more about infectious diseases than a Harvard professor of medicine.But if you don't care about your mind being shaped and twisted for profit by Silicon Valley and in the service of the Money Power, carry on Twittering.
“He is Risen – Death could not hold him. Rejoice in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
How soon before the US follows the path of the defunct Soviet Union by making the expression or religious faith illegal.
Related:
Facebook ‘Fact-Checks’ Woman’s Post on Vaccine’s Adverse Reaction One Week Before It Killed HerAnd Other Lying Bastards
"It Was Intentionally False": 60 Minutes Slammed For Fabricating "Pay-For-Play" Narrative Against Gov. DeSantisTalk about illogical. Hey moron, if the vaccine works, then it shouldn't matter what someone that hasn't been vaccinated does. The unvaccinated are the one supposedly taking the risk.
-------
But "the experts" have said that even if you get the vaccine you still have to wear face coverings, socially distance 6 feet (or is it now 3 feet?) and stay at home.
Which might be reasonable because the "vaccine" does not prevent you from getting the covid. It only lessens the symptoms if you do get it.
Now, with the "vaccine passport" that all goes away?
So many mixed messages.
And it is true; Dr. Fauci looks like the 80 year old version of the Mad Magazine icon
-------
By what authority does ANY government agency issue passports for movement within the Continental United States? Under ANY circumstances? For ANY reason?
They want marshal law but under another name thinking that will fool everybody into believing its legal.
-------
Vaccine passports for Americans, while millions of unknown illegal aliens walk across the border and are just set free into the country. So, what does he have to say about kids in cages, in one big concentration camp, that is a mega/ultra/max/best-of-best super spreader event? I'm confused, democrats said 6 people couldn't gather for Christmas, but now democrats have thousands literally laying on each other.
-------
You vote for Leftists, you get Leftism.
Their hypocrisy is astounding...
No voter ID necessary BUT you need a vaccine passport to access your Rights and Freedoms...?
The Left assumes the Non-Left does not want something...so they demand it be mandatory for everyone...they themselves will harm themselves as long as it harms their political adversaries as well.
Great business model.
Related:
The Day that Trump Panicked, and Wrecked His PresidencyMeantime, the US Army is preparing to deploy, hypersonic missiles in Europe that can reach Russian targets in five minutes. In response, the Russians will presumably launch on warning. Is that suicidal, or what?"The United States continues to stand with Ukraine and its allies and partners today, as it has from the beginning of this conflict. On this somber anniversary, we reaffirm a simple truth: Crimea is Ukraine," the Biden administration said on Feb.26.
"The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of the peninsula, and we will stand with Ukraine against Russia’s aggressive acts."
Related:
Bill Vallicella: Is There a Political 'Use it or Lose it' Principle?
Pat Buchanan: Why Putin’s Pipeline Is Welcome in Germany
Paul Antonopoulos: Britain To Intensify Its Activities Against Russia (while cosying up to China)
With no money, an ineffective navy, and plans to reduce the ground forces by about 10,000 soldiers that will bring the British military to its smallest size in two hundred years, it is not clear how London can achieve its great ambition of surrounding Russia in the Arctic, Baltic Sea, Western Balkans and the Black Sea.
By Rob Slane
The Blogmire Blog, March 22, 2021: It is a year since we embarked on an untried, untested, unscientific, draconian and frankly mad medical, social, economic and psychological experiment on millions of people. On the day we were thrust into this folly I wrote, “So that seems to be that. The end of Britain as we knew it.” All that has taken place since has, I believe, confirmed that, and my only surprise is that millions of people still cling to the bizarre idea that Lockdowns were based on science, that they were necessary, that they have been effective, and that we have a benevolent Government whose aim has been to keep us all safe. None of these things are true.
You will search in vain for pre-2020 medical and scientific literature advocating the mass quarantining of healthy people as an appropriate response to a pandemic. In fact, after a panicked Mexican Government flirted with the idea for five whole days during the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak (ending it once it was realised how devastating it would be), the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) at the time, Dr Margaret Chan, explicitly warned against such destructive measures being used:
“In this regard, let me make a strong plea to countries to refrain from introducing measures that are economically and socially disruptive, yet have no scientific justification and bring no clear public health benefit.”
So this disruptive, unscientific measure, with no clear public health benefit was quietly buried and forgotten about. Until, that it is, it was implemented in January 2020, in the Chinese province of Hubei, on the orders of Xi Jinping, leader of one of the most totalitarian regimes on the planet, as the lawyer Michael Sanger details in great depth here.
One might have expected the WHO to take the same line as Dr. Chan in 2009, yet by February it had inexplicably changed its pandemic response guidance, on the flimsiest and most unreliable evidence, bringing it into line with the Wuhan decree.
One might then have expected Western countries to reject this tyrannical approach, but shockingly they did not. In Britain, the perfectly sensible Pandemic Preparedness Strategy the Government had had in place since 2011, which stressed the absolute importance of ensuring minimal disruption to society, even during a virus outbreak that might take 315,000 lives in a 15 week period, was binned. Why? That is the single most important question to which we need answers, but I think that Professor Neil Ferguson gave us a big clue in his interview with The Times in December:
“They [the Chinese] claimed to have flattened the curve. I was skeptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy. But it’s a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realized we could.”
His claim of flattening the curve is a red-herring. His comment that they realised they could get away with implementing the tactics of a despotic regime is not.
Having been failed by the WHO and the Government, surely the British people would not fall for something so self-evidently absurd as prohibiting millions of perfectly healthy people from coming into contact with other healthy people? Surely the spirit that had made this country one of the freest nations on earth would kick in?
Sadly, and bafflingly, no. The British people, through a combination of being bombarded with fear, hysteria and outright lies on an unprecedented scale, meekly submitted to these despotic decrees, believing them to be something to do with being kept safe.
The biggest lie by far is that of asymptomatic transmission. Indeed, it may one day become known as the biggest lie, told to the largest number of people, in the shortest space of time. The claim was based chiefly on an incident in Germany, where a Chinese lady, who was thought to have been asymptomatic, was said to have spread the illness. However, it subsequently turned out that she did in fact have symptoms, but had suppressed them with medication. Yet that was scarcely reported on, and by that time the myth that this was some kind of new, mystical disease that could be spread by people with no symptoms had been born, and with it the basis for the Lockdowns, masks, and the myriad of other bizarre, dystopian restrictions placed upon us. Later in the year, a huge study of 10 million people in Wuhan showed zero cases of asymptomatic spread, but as you can probably guess this was entirely ignored by Governments and media around the world.
What of Professor Ferguson’s claim of 510,000 deaths? This remains the basis for the claim of Lockdown supporters that there would have been hundreds of thousands more deaths had we not locked down. Apart from the fact that the UK is currently fifth on the worldwide deaths per million table having had the third most stringent Lockdown on planet earth, according to the University of Oxford, and that countries who did not lock down have fared no worse, is there anything else that we can point to, to show the fallacy of Professor Ferguson’s doomsday prophecy?
Why yes there is, and it is in fact contained within Professor Ferguson’s report itself. He arrived at his figure of 510,000 dead for a “no-restrictions” scenario by estimating that 81% of the population would become infected, and by assuming an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid-19 at 0.9%. However, in October, arguably the world’s foremost epidemiologist, John Ioannidis, of Stanford University, California, published a definitive study into the IFR of Covid-19. He calculated that the median rate was 0.23%, not 0.9%, as Ferguson had assumed, and his work was accepted and approved by the WHO.
This is very important: If Ferguson had used the IFR number of 0.23%, rather than 0.9%, guess what number of deaths he would have arrived at? The answer is around 127,000. Which is mighty interesting, since the total number of “official” deaths from Covid-19, at the time of writing, is 126,172. In other words, if Ferguson had used the correct IFR, the number of deaths he would have predicted in a scenario with no Lockdown would have been the same number of official deaths that we’ve actually had with the 3rd most stringent Lockdown on earth. Of course, I’m well aware that those 126,000 or so deaths were not all from Covid-19, but Lockdown supporters claim they were and so it’s for them to explain how this number is currently the same as Ferguson’s study would have predicted for a non-Lockdown situation, had he used the correct IFR.
That Lockdowns have not saved lives ought to be obvious. The virus was known since early March 2020 to overwhelmingly kill the elderly with comorbidities, and so resources could and should have been targeted to protect such people. Yet the scattergun approach that was taken of quarantining everyone is not — by definition — a targeted approach. And so the irony is that with all the absurd calls for healthy people to change their whole way of life to protect the vulnerable, what actually happened is the healthy had their lives utterly overturned, and the vulnerable were left to die.
So much for the futility of Lockdowns to do good, what about their destructive power? This cannot be overstated. They are destroying lives. They are destroying livelihoods. They are destroying jobs. They are destroying businesses. They are destroying education. They are destroying churches. They are destroying trust. They are destroying mental health. They are destroying marriages. They are destroying relationships. They are destroying communities. They are destroying the idea that the police serve the people. They are destroying the rule of law. They are destroying free Britain.
Time and space will not suffice to tell of the destruction to the delicate balances of life in the medical sphere (especially weakened immune systems), the social sphere, the psychological sphere and the economic sphere, or the slide to a Transhumanist future brought about by the incessant calls for humans to stay away from other humans, and the bizarre ritual of covering the human face — the most immediate and important physical manifestation of the Imago Dei — with useless bits of cloth.
To those who have acquiesced in this, I would just ask this: Do you still not see what you have done? Do you still not see what it is you have supported?
The Britain that existed prior to March 2020, or which many of us thought existed, is gone. The Britain, in which we took freedom for granted, is gone. We have entered a very different future, and what is more, the vast majority of people seem to have welcomed it. Worse than this, we are being ushered into a Transhumanist Technocracy, where we are not seen as human, made in the image of God, but merely as potential virus carriers, digital ID numbers, drones fit to be tracked and traced, fit to be watched and ordered about by the dystopian technocrats who are building their Medical Despotism around us, but not considered worthy to live quiet and peaceful lives, going about our lawful business, living life without interfering overlords meddling in every aspect of it.
For the first few months I hedged my bets between the idea that the continuance of these measures was down to politicians trying to cover up for a monumental blunder, or that it was part of something far more nefarious. And whilst I am still unclear on the origins, for me the “covering up for a big mistake” possibility became untenable in October, with the release of The Great Barrington Declaration. This was a scientifically sound, medically robust, intellectually credible way out of the crisis that had been created. It was an open door for the British Government, along with others around the world, to walk through and save face. But what actually happened is they either ignored it or, in the case of Comrade Hancock, actively ridiculed it.
I think it obvious by now that there is something far more nefarious going on. But how to explain it? Some imagine that this must require some Dr Evil character, pulling the strings and making his puppets all dance to the same tune. I don’t believe this to be so. Anyone who has even the most cursory knowledge of politics over the past two decades must have noticed that almost all the people who rise to the top have broadly the same ideology. They think the same things. They mouth the same platitudes. They walk the same walk. And if you don’t think, speak or walk like them, why you’ll never be invited to the party. It is fairly obvious that many of these people have seen Covid-19 as an opportunity to increase their power, to control people, and to remake society in their own hideous image.
But that’s not all. I have seen endless disquieting comments – echoing my own thoughts – from both Christians and non-Christians, that the inexplicably bizarre reaction to what happened was as if millions of people have been put under some kind of spell. On this, it would be well to remember that there are things that go on which are well beyond our ability to explain by purely human reason and human actions:
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:1).
Having been lulled and propagandised into the acceptance of measures that are not only futile in and of themselves, but which have destroyed the idea of what we might call normal life, millions have now been lulled into the idea that rushed, untried, untested “vaccines”, which are not due to finish their clinical trials until 2023 (see links to Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna trials), are some sort of salvation and way back to normal. But as the news in recent days has shown, they are in for a big disappointment. Your overlords do not want to let you return to normal. They have the bit between their teeth, and I don’t think they are about to let this opportunity go.
What we are seeing is far bigger, far more comprehensive, far more awful than most of us can comprehend. As Naomi Wolf summed up in a fantastic commentary on the situation recently:
“But this time we do not just face a war on freedom. This time we face a war on human beings, and on all that makes us human.”
Indeed. From Lockdowns to social distancing to masks, humanity and what it means to be human is under attack. There is but one peaceful way out of this Transhumanist Technocratic future: individuals, churches and nations need to repent before God, and having repented they need to plead with Him for deliverance from this judgement, and that he will re-establish truth, reality, and what it actually means to be human, in a world that has forgotten these things. The hour is late. The need really is urgent.
Related:
Victor Davis Hanson: Follow The ‘Science,’ They SaidBy C.J. Hopkins:
So, according to Facebook and the Atlantic Council, I am now a “dangerous individual,” you know, like a “terrorist,” or a “serial murderer,” or “human trafficker,” or some other kind of “criminal.” Or I’ve been praising “dangerous individuals,” or disseminating their symbols, or otherwise attempting to “sow dissension” and cause “offline harm.”
Actually, I’m not really clear what I’m guilty of, but I’m definitely some sort of horrible person you want absolutely nothing to do with, whose columns you do not want to read, whose books you do not want to purchase, and the sharing of whose Facebook posts might get your account immediately suspended. Or, at the very least, you’ll be issued this warning:
Now, hold on, don’t click away just yet. You’re already on whatever website you’re reading this “dangerous,” “terrorist” column on (or you’re reading it in an email, probably on your phone), which means you are already on the official “Readers of Mass-Murdering Content” watch-list. So you might as well take the whole ride at this point.
Related:
