In a September interview that went viral on social media Sunday, a United Nations operative admitted the U.S. government-funded organization “partnered with Google” to rig the results returned on the world’s dominant search engine for the phrase “climate change.”
This follows multiple casual disclosures that, yes, politics control the information on monopoly tech platforms. In fact, government officials all the way up to the White House routinely use Big Tech to control what citizens are allowed to say to each other online, as an ongoing lawsuit from several U.S. attorneys general recently divulged.
The Biden White House is fighting further disclosures about high-level federal officials’ involvement in this government-pressured censorship regime, including Anthony Fauci and the White House press secretary. The companies involved include Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter, the court documents say.
Earlier this year, a clip of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg — who threw hundreds of millions of dollars obtained from his communications monopoly company into helping Democrat activists embed inside government election offices in 2020 — also went viral. It showed him telling podcaster Joe Rogan that the FBI also controls the information Facebook allows people to share. The FBI’s meddling affected the 2020 presidential election outcome.
In other words, it’s not just Communist China where the citizenry’s access to knowledge is controlled by government officials. It’s now a global phenomenon. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the other Big Tech companies are global monopolies headquartered within the United States whose information monopolies affect elections globally. Again, they admit to limiting and amplifying election-affecting information at the behest of U.S. officials. (No wonder China won’t allow Google or Facebook inside its Great Firewall.)
In countries that pretend to be self-governing “democracies” such as the United States, government officials controlling what information is allowed to spread on platforms that government policies help keep dominant is blatant election meddling. It’s controlling elections by controlling the information voters get.
Google controls a reported 81 percent of internet searches and, with Facebook, influences perhaps three-quarters of all internet traffic (very recent information about this appears not readily at the top of even DuckDuckGo results). Twitter is much smaller traffic-wise but still very influential, as it has a disproportionate effect on the swamp class. If these entities black out certain topics — and we know they do because they say so publicly! — they could easily swing elections, or almost anything else they wanted, really.
Just think about it: How would you find out about important happenings without the internet? Even if we start with personal matters: What if Facebook decided to manipulate your feed just to see how it affects your emotions? Oh, it still does that with teenage girls on Instagram?
For political news, how would you get that without using the internet now — would you read a local newspaper? To the extent those exist and report reliable information, which is almost not at all, so-called local newspapers are now Big Tech derivatives themselves, as reporters largely get their information via email and searches, and access to their work is influenced by search engines.
Would you get your information via email? Email providers also censor based on politics. Maybe via phone or text? Well, how many people can you talk to or text at one time? Not enough to get really good coverage of national information important to, say, selecting a president. How many good national political reporters can you get on speakerphone?
The Zuckerberg and UN official’s recent limited hangouts are also certainly just the iceberg tip. The FBI and other government agencies don’t need to tell Facebook to ban regime-damaging information if the outlets that social media companies don’t choke refuse to cover it.
A recent example is the FBI’s out-of-control raid on a pro-life activist dad over a misdemeanor charge that local police dismissed. That raid wasn’t covered by the leftist media that Big Tech’s compromised fact-checkers rate in ways that allow them to spread information faster and farther than conservative outlets.
This situation allows government officials to choose what information gets out about their activities. That effectively ends genuine public accountability. Voters can’t vote to stop things they don’t know are happening, or to make things happen they haven’t heard are on offer from a candidate. If a dad gets raided because FBI bigwigs don’t like his politics, and Big Tech’s favored media companies don’t report on it, how would anyone know? If no one knows, no one can hold bad actors accountable.
That means if no one except the victims knows, it’s not only going to keep happening, it’s going to get worse. That’s how corruption works.
U.S. intelligence agencies in particular have paid precisely zero penalties for using their powers to openly meddle in U.S. elections. The most recent operation they conducted that we know about is the Russia collusion hoax manufactured to keep voters from electing Donald Trump, or, failing that, to make the Electoral College majority of voters’ choice of Trump meaningless.
Because officials such as Bill Barr and John Durham, as well as Republicans or anyone else in Congress, have failed to penalize the FBI and Department of Justice’s election interference operations, they’re increasing. RedState, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon say several dozen Trump associates and supporters have been recently raided or subpoenaed by the FBI.
The FBI is also meddling in state elections by investigating candidates based on their political positions. It raided a former president’s home on laughable charges similar to those the FBI director dismissed for that president’s election opponent.
Also, of course, the FBI and DOJ are hunting down political opponents of Democrats on largely trespassing charges and making sure they’re given maximum punishment, all clearly based on political prejudice, not justice. This is the same FBI that has been proven to hide behind false “national security” claims and to lie to judges and grand juries to authorize spying and raids of Democrats’ political opponents, with no consequences to speak of yet. Fellow government agents are performing similar political prosecutions, such as using courts to harass and eat away at the substance of Trump associates such as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, and the newly announced New York state prosecution of Trump’s family and business.
Federal agencies conduct warrantless mass surveillance on Americans. The Biden administration has formally declared that disagreement with its policies can comprise “domestic terrorism,” giving federal agencies even more license to harass Americans for their speech and ideas under the accountability shield of “national security.” Given the prosecutions we’ve all watched for years now of Trump and any associates using what are later proven to be distorted and fabricated quotes and allegations, does any of us think we’d survive if this Eye of Sauron were turned on us, as it is routinely even on apolitical folks such as small-time farmers?
Of course not — and that is part of the point. This is the kind of compliance-inducing terror projected onto citizens, not in self-governing societies, but in police states. Covid-tide proved the conditions are nearly in place for dispensing with the regime’s cover story that we live in an entirely self-governing society.
For during those years, Americans were fed lie after lie after misrepresentation after conspiracy after coverup, with strong effects on the election. Just like with the FBI, almost no one has yet been held to account for it. So the information control operations are getting bigger and bolder. We’re even being told about them as an exercise in discouraging what remains of the opposition.
Elections are a sham if government officials choose what we can know about things like their use of public offices and whether we can openly debate what comprises a legitimate public emergency and how to respond. Those who wish to operate in darkness do not do so from altruistic motives, no matter what story they spin about their activities. Will any entity effectively stand up to our mafia government and thereby prove we are not already living in a soft-authoritarian police state?
