This time, the American elections did not involve the notorious “Russian hackers”. The multinational corporations did a great job on their own. The new president was appointed to the Americans by Google and Facebook, and the articles of Bill Gates in The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, acquired the status of all-American “pointers”.
“I was told here that you cannot win an election if you are not supported by BigTech. Let’s show them tomorrow that this is possible”, – Donald Trump told his supporters on the eve of the election. The very next day, when information technology, backed up by a no-nonsense admin resource, was working against him, it was clear that the president was wrong.
Today, internet platforms that have teamed up with leading media outlets have practically appointed Joe Biden president of the United States – contrary to the opinion of tens of millions of Americans and in spite of the endless scandals of ballot stuffing and the voting of “dead souls”. The culmination of this mockery of democratic procedures was the disabling broadcast of President Trump’s speech accusing his opponents of election fraud.
In recent months, leaders of IT corporations have been constantly dragged to Congress and the US Senate, interrogated and forced to report. Logically, Zuckerberg (Facebook), Dorsey (Twitter), Pichai (Google) should be attacked by Republicans – after all, the social networks deliberately drowned Trump and his supporters. In fact, everything looks different.
Democrat congressmen are attacking the owners of internet platforms and social networks no less violently than their political opponents. Republicans accuse BigTech of censorship, Democrats of monopolising the market.
Republicans are threatening to repeal Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act. This will make operators responsible for any content posted on their platforms. Any user will be able to sue any IT corporation, and the shaft of these lawsuits will ensure their rapid bankruptcy.
The democrats want to apply antitrust laws to IT corporations. It is squeaky and not fast, but this law does allow corporations that have taken a disproportionate share of the market to be crushed. Antitrust legislation has in its time hacked into both Rockefeller’s oil business and IBM Corporation.
It turns out that American politicians from different parties, fiercely fighting in the elections, suddenly unite against IT corporations in an incomprehensible way. Why did this happen?
The past year has clearly shown how the system of power in the USA has changed. President Trump was losing control of the country in front of the eyes of the world. At this time, the all-American (and in many ways the world) agenda was being created by the owners of IT giants. The social networks demonised Trump, terrorised his supporters, and fanned the protests of the Black Lives Matter.
In the places where Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg’s “pointers” were happily performed by mayors and governors belonging to the Democratic Party. The President was shut out of the process of governing the country at all. Contrary to his direct instructions, the mayor of New York City provoked and supported atrocities in his city. And the Mayor of Seattle, in response to Trump’s demand for order, wrote to him on Twitter: “Sit in your bunker!
The November elections did not change anything in this regard. Joe Biden is even better suited for the role of puppet president, who plays a purely decorative role and lacks all levers of power.
Mayors and governors will be in charge on the ground to the best of their ability. And they will be managed by some incomprehensible multi-billionaire owners of multinational companies with a residence permit in Dublin. Or even more murky people behind these guys.
The President of the United States, and the entire class of American politicians, simply has no place in this two-story management scheme. That is what scares American congressmen and senators, regardless of their party orientation. All of them felt suddenly an unnecessary link.
It is no coincidence that the Americans have sharply forgotten about Russian hackers. It turned out that the fake villains who wrote the software code were, after all, a simple and clear threat. Special services of national states are pacifying each other on a regular basis. But here is the outrageous level of influence of IT corporations – a thing that can wipe out all nation-states together with their intelligence services, politicians, officials, lobbyists and even the immortal Nancy Pelosi.
A couple of years ago, a Russian liberal party was outraged by the idea of a “sovereign Internet” and wrote funny memes on the subject. But the Americans tried the boundless freedom of information technology and got the wrong president for whom they actually voted. It turned out suddenly that there is no sovereignty without control of the Internet.
Contrary to the mantra that private business has no ideology, internet corporations are imposing a completely defined and intelligible political programme on the world. Its meaning is to infringe on the rights of the white majority, a radically green programme, deindustrialisation, denationalisation, and the unleashing of endless “cultural” wars throughout the world. Subtle ideas have long created their own new elm and a complex system of political censorship.
This agenda can be easily copied in all countries, on all continents. It gets ridiculous: the people of Japan enter the Black Lives Matter rallies in large numbers, although where do they seem to be and where is the oppression of blacks? It may as well be possible to introduce a two-storey system of power, the testing ground for which is now the States.
Critics of national Internet control are appealing to the private status of IT empires. The social network owners have the right to establish any rules at their shop. However, the monopolistic nature of their activities allows the owners of Internet giants to censor the free thought of billions of people and spread any ideas, even the most cannibal ones. We should not forget that Volkischer Beobahter also once started as a purely private publication.
Victoria Nikiforova, RIA