Last week’s Democratic presidential primary debates highlighted one of the great paradoxes of our time: The Democratic Party, to all appearances, has gone completely mad, embracing wildly radical policies from mass gun confiscation to socialism to late-term abortion to allowing convicted, incarcerated terrorists to vote. Yet the party could well see its candidate elected president in 2020.

How is that possible?

Consider, after all, the degree of lunacy now championed by Democrat presidential candidates: America is being negatively transformed by a full-scale, never-ending invasion across its southern border, but all the Democrat candidates love, enable and encourage it. Their “Green New Deal” schemes would cost untold trillions of taxpayer dollars while destroying America’s fossil fuel industries, thereby putting millions out of work. They celebrate full-term abortion (aka infanticide) and cheer the epidemic of delusional men invading women’s locker rooms and showers and dominating the world of women’s sports. One Democrat candidate, Julian Castro, announced from the debate stage that he even wants taxpayer-funded abortions for men who get pregnant.

Add to this insanity the never-ending calls to impeach President Donald Trump, all part of a rolling coup attempt that has severely traumatized America with the most outrageous political hoax in U.S. history – the allegation, utterly without evidence, that the president of the United States is secretly a traitorous Russian double agent.

Of course, the fake news media serve as the grand enablers of all this, modern alchemists magically transmuting leftwing insanity into fools’ gold, forever portraying Democrats as moral and caring, and Republicans as selfish and evil.

However, all of this intense daily drama also serves as camouflage – the perfect smokescreen for concealing another and even more daunting attempted coup d’etat, one taking place largely out of view.

And therein lies the answer to our question of how a wildly unhinged political party like the Democrats of 2019 could actually retake the White House – and Congress – and therefore the courts – in 2020.

Imagine, just for a minute, that some unseen yet immensely powerful entity existed, one capable of influencing the minds of hundreds of millions of people, shaping their perceptions in such a profound way as to steer them toward voting for a certain party or candidate. Suppose, further, that this influence was virtually undetectable, indeed that the entity was one we had come to admire, consulting it on a daily basis, tapping freely into its vast, almost god-like reservoir of universal knowledge and understanding.

Suppose further that, though imperceptible to us, this great and all-knowing something had a secret plan for our lives and our society, an overriding will to guide and shape us and our world in its benevolent image.

This, in essence, is what America – indeed the whole world – is dealing with in the Age of Big Tech.

As the June issue of Whistleblower magazine documents, citing hard evidence including multiple peer-reviewed studies, Google is already determining the results of elections around the world. And, contends Google researcher Robert Epstein, Ph.D., former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today (and a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), Google likely swung as many as 3 million votes toward Hillary in the 2016 presidential contest.

It just turned out not to be quite enough.

“I’m guessing that these companies held back in 2016, because they were overconfident,” Epstein said later. Recently, Epstein predicted, based on his half-decade of peer-reviewed research, that Big Tech could swing 15 million votes toward the Democrat presidential candidate in 2020, without leaving any paper trail and without those so influenced realizing it.

Big Tech and Big Brother

There’s more, believe it or not.

In a widely read Wired article headlined “Is Big Tech Merging with Big Brother?” journalist David Samuels led with a chilling anecdote:

A friend of mine, who runs a large television production company in the car-mad city of Los Angeles, recently noticed that his intern, an aspiring filmmaker from the People’s Republic of China, was walking to work.

When he offered to arrange a swifter mode of transportation, she declined. When he asked why, she explained that she “needed the steps” on her Fitbit to sign in to her social media accounts. If she fell below the right number of steps, it would lower her health and fitness rating, which is part of her social rating, which is monitored by the government. A low social rating could prevent her from working or traveling abroad.

China’s social rating system, which was announced by the ruling Communist Party in 2014, will soon be a fact of life for many more Chinese.

By 2020, if the Party’s plan holds, every footstep, keystroke, like, dislike, social media contact, and posting tracked by the state will affect one’s social rating.

Samuels goes on to explain what all this portends. “Personal ‘creditworthiness’ or ‘trustworthiness’ points will be used to reward and punish individuals and companies by granting or denying them access to public services like health care, travel, and employment,” he writes. Individuals who score high enough “will find themselves in a ‘green channel,’ where they can more easily access social opportunities,” whereas those who fall short or engage in activities disapproved of by the state “will be ‘unable to move a step.'”

Scary, of course, but that’s China, right? A soulless communist state, so what do you expect?

But what about America?

In the West, writes Samuels, “the threat of government surveillance systems being integrated with the existing corporate surveillance capacities of big-data companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon into one gigantic all-seeing eye appears to trouble very few people.”

He then spends the rest of his 5,000+ word article documenting how America’s elite class appears “to accept the merger of the U.S. military and intelligence complex with Big Tech as a good thing.” Indeed, with the growing presence of Big Tech in Washington, D.C. – from Google’s huge corporate lobbying expenditures, to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ purchase of the Washington Post, to major high-tech contracts being awarded by the CIA, Pentagon and other federal agencies to companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Google – the merger of Big Tech and Big Government appears to be happening.

And then there’s this: In a June report on Breitbart.com, technology writer Allum Bokhari reveals, based on an internal Facebook document obtained by the news website, that Facebook monitors users’ offline behavior to determine whether or not the user should be labeled a “hate agent.”

Titled “Hate Agent Policy Review,” the internal document “outlines a series of ‘signals’ that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a ‘hate agent’ and banned from the platform,” writes Bokhari.

Revealing that the signals “include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior,” the article identifies some of them:

  • If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”
  • Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.”
  • Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.
  • The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.”

Some users Facebook has already placed on its list of potential “hate agents,” writes Bokhari, include conservative British writer and YouTube personality Paul Joseph Watson, popular black conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel.

Disturbingly reminiscent of China’s social credit system, Facebook is monitoring “hate speech” both on and off its platform, and categorizing it in the following way, according to Breitbart.com:

Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:

3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal

5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal

If you’ve done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal.

Let’s say it straight: Big Tech – overwhelmingly far-leftist progressive in worldview, and therefore by definition totalitarian – is attempting to transform the world in its image.

Not a day goes by without new examples of this slow-motion revolution becoming evident, with another conservative voice being banned, de-monetized or branded a “hate agent” – one more small piece of a cosmically large puzzle.

Big Tech – first and foremost Google, which accounts for 90 percent of all search inquiries worldwide – has become almost like a god to billions of people.

But that god is attempting to reshape errant and wayward humanity in its image. Its most urgent task right now? Defeat Trump in the 2020 election.

Big Tech is still kicking itself for having failed in 2016. It doesn’t intend to make the same mistake again.

*****

WhistleblowerBigTechStealth

2 WAYS YOU CAN HELP

1. Keep WND alive in the face of mounting efforts by Big Tech to silence the oldest independent online news organization and its courageous, truth-based, pro-American, pro-Christian journalistic voice by making a donation of any amount, large or small.

2. Subscribe to WND’s flagship product, its acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, edited monthly by bestselling author and WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. Whistleblower’s June issue is “BIG TECH’S STEALTH COUP: How the leftwing lords of the internet intend to swing the 2020 election.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.