In this, the final article of our Election 2019 retrospective, we review:
Previous installments addressed:
- Gerrymandering & organizational weaknesses of the RPV (Points 1 – 7)
- Election financing and RPV infighting (Points 8 – 17)
- Demographics & ex-felon voting (Points 18 – 29)
- Subversive nonprofits & the micro-donation campaign finance loophole (Points 30 – 44)
This will complete the picture as to how Democrats slaughtered Republicans at the polls in 2019, so easily. Many of these factors are in-play nationally, so citizens across the nation – Democrat and Republican alike – must learn quickly.
Tech domination & information superiority
Information retrieval and result ranking
Dr. Robert Epstein is a lifelong Democrat. A computer programmer, brilliant psychologist, and man of integrity – he is what great Americans look like. He has been stabbed in the back by friends and family for alerting the world to tech thought control. Although he supported Hillary Clinton ardently, she betrayed him when she discovered he was educating the public on this corruption.
45. Biased information retrieval currently favors Democrat electoral influence and more importantly, public opinion on issues, which drives acquiescence to policy.
46. Those who currently benefit from this information superiority are so short-sighted, egotistical, and immoral that they cannot even conceive of the day in which these tools of mass thought control will work against their fleeting interests.
Dr. Robert Epstein is wiser. Dr. Epstein is willing to endure relational aggression from his own friends and family for the greater good and pursuit of truth and justice, forgoing short-lived cheap boons to his own Democrat preferences. He is the definition of a hero – a person who endures great personal sacrifice for the good of others.
Epstein joined an unlikely interviewer in his most detailed and important interview:
The original testimony is also important:
The conflict climaxed in a twitter war between Dr. Epstein, Trump, and Hillary Clinton. I suggest you read the Epstein tweet storm, which includes tweets like this:
47. This wicked merger of tech and democrat influence operations would only surprise STEM gurus on permanent assignment to Antarctica. Numerous academic studies show that tech companies employ left-wing bias to influence public opinion. Unreliable surveys try to whitewash the leftist bias, but the political donations favoring Clinton @75% and internal corporate protest groups shine truth through the lies.
48. Where are the Republican tech donors @75% domination of major tech companies? Where are the Microsoft and Google internal employee groups protesting services to Planned Parenthood, gun control interests, environmental fanaticism, price controls, social (in)justice and diversity discrimination, sexual identitarian culture, and redistribution?
There are plenty of internal groups protesting their company’s contracts with law enforcement, Western culture and history, American cybersecurity, and military operations. The Democrat hate groups in corporations are so visceral that they want to shut down Chik-fil-a because its owner would not validate gay marriage.
49. In the late 1990s, I was in my Engineering Physics program, breaking the boundaries of what’s possible with technology. In my first exposure to research financing, I learned about Google’s MDDS tax-funded grant pilfering.
In the mid-2000s, I learned about Google’s collaboration with China’s totalitarian thought control. I boycotted Google since that day, as a technologist myself, understanding what is possible with artificial intelligence and algorithms, and rejecting those who would use it for such evil.
50. Google built their company on coerced serf labor from the American taxpayer, and since then, they have been using their power to violate privacy rights of innocent citizens, assist foreign opposition to America, and subvert American ideology and electoral integrity.
51. Epstein’s research is the latest chapter in a long saga of tech subversion.
Considering that he devoted most of his career to psychology, I think he’s only got a small inkling of what is going on.
52. Subversion of information retrieval and result ranking is a complex field. You can control entire audiences with artificial intelligence, algorithms, and machine learning. Your spellcheck is a form of information retrieval subversion. You type a word like neophobia. There is no exception thrown (red underline). Big tech has decided it is a real word. Next, you type a word like neophilia, and the red underline shows up. An exception in the software has been thrown. The software then handles the exception.
Verboten words that strike at the heart of the ideological designs of the tech company are auto-corrected. You’re now questioning yourself. “Is this a real word? Maybe I shouldn’t use it.” You correct yourself and erase the word from your vernacular. You’ve just been controlled. Now you’re avoiding words that accurately describe the reality you experience. “Fear of the new, i.e. change, i.e. neophobia” is a real concept, while “irrational sycophantic obsession with change and imagined progress, i.e. neophilia” is not a real concept, according to Apple.
53. The exception handling can also alert the tech corporation of your continued use of “wrong-speak.” Now they’ve got you profiled. You’re a trouble maker. You won’t think how they want you to think. You won’t believe the things they want you to believe. You won’t speak how they want you to speak. Every time you fight spellcheck, correcting the same word a dozen times to train the dictionary, the software can send your wrong-speak violation back to the tech company’s cloud.
54. Sentics (sentiment + semantics) is the artificial intelligence discipline for deriving sentiment from long text. It can further evaluate your ideology and classify you as a thought-criminal by big tech. If a person mentions Clinton 100 times, how does an AI know whether Clinton makes them angry, sad, joyous, inspired, or fearful? Only accurate sentiment detection could answer that question.
In its nascent stage, you noticed things like Facebook realizing you were using keywords like Christmas, and then grouping your posts as such. Keyword aggregation is primitive. Sentics has become much more sophisticated in the past decade.
Controlling your information retrieval from your brain to your keyboard with spellcheck is just one tool.
55. Epstein has identified another – search engine result rankings. They prioritize results, defining “reputable” domains as ones moving in lockstep groupthink consensus, which happens to favor global socialism, democrats, WEF, UN, dirigisme, and all other institutionalist agendas. They do not define “reputable” by objective veracity, evidence, and scholarship. They define it by legacy clout and popularity bought by grandfathered reputation.
56. In fact, since big tech has allowed the cabal of “reputable” domains to drive results ranking, scholarly articles are buried under mindless propaganda by mainstream news domains with only peripheral relationship to the scholarly topic explicitly searched. My own work has become incredibly difficult, since most of the time I spend online is for entrepreneurial and scholarly research.
Explicit searches like “healthcare insurance statistics” used to bring up scholarly entries by independent venues like McKinsey’s analysis on waste in the healthcare system, Brookings, Hoover, and Heritage assessments – ideologically diverse and thorough scholarship. Now it brings up government domains, progressive news media, and managed care corporate propaganda.
Big Tech considers “Vox” to be more reputable and relevant than Stanford Hoover. Understand? A group of leftist ideological fanatics running a slick and well-financed propaganda factory, who could barely pass Calculus for Dummies in college, are given more authority on healthcare management than Stanford professors who devote their life to such analyses. These farcical search results are “NewsGuard,” “trusted,” and “reputable” web domains. And they now dominate your mind when you seek information on the web and social media.
57. This is the result of Big Tech biasing the algorithm to “reputable” domains. They have affected mass manufacturing of groupthink consensus, and eradication of scholarship – even for those who explicitly seek hard knowledge.
Information retrieval subversion of YOUR OWN data on YOUR OWN devices and cloud service
But what about data that you store on your own computer and in “the cloud?”
58. You have notebooks like OneNote and Evernote. You have documents indexed by the indexing service on your computer. Say that I worked for an intelligence agency or big tech company, tasked with information operations/information warfare (IW/IO). Our command is to erase some concept, or bury it for a certain time while we pursue an organizational agenda.
I form a payload that indicates you are writing documents (or storing them), that interfere with our agenda. These could be historical original sources. These could be new documents you or your colleagues have created. I would derive a combination of sentics results – I discover your document is against an oil pipeline, debt and currency policy, opposition to LGBT favoritism, US military objectives, abortion clinics, or even supporting the new Unplanned movie.
I send the payload to your indexing service. I tell it to deprioritize the indexing of those documents. You have hundreds of documents on your computer (or home server, or workplace server). You remember that document, and search for it, even with words in its title. It doesn’t show up. It still sits on your computer, but it’s buried at the bottom of search results where you’ll never find it, if presented to you at all. I have just made your own wrong-think information disappear from your own devices, without deleting it.
59. This information retrieval subversion is even easier to perpetrate on your documents stored in cloud services.
You think Google search engine manipulation is problematic? It’s just one of many tools for digital thought control.
Social media censorship, demonetization, and shadow banning
60. Biased and manipulated information retrieval is complemented by outright censorship, demonetization, notification cessation, and “push throttling” of social media.
- 61. Censorship – a tech company deactivates an entire profile, page, channel, or posts and content within that profile. They may retain the user-provided content for future blackmail and harassment, while forbidding any external party (including the creator) from ever seeing it again.
- 62. Demonetization – a tech company will allow the content to persist, accessible to all, but will not allow the creator to obtain their fair share of ad revenue from its broadcast. This is how big tech chokes out wrong-think civilians by killing their revenue stream.
- 63. “Shadow Banning” – how does a tech company decide which social media posts and YouTube videos to show you? You have thousands of friends and channel subscriptions. It can only show you a few dozen posts or videos a day. How does it decide which content to present at the top of your feed, and which content to deprioritize? Shadow banning is “push throttling.” The content remains, but only a fraction of the audience is ever shown the posts.
- 64. Notification cessation – with this method, an identified wrong-think user who engages in a debate is suddenly denied notifications for responses to their comments. The debate goes on with other users, and the wrong-think user is removed from the debate simply by the tech company ceasing to notify them of responses
Shadow banning is the most pernicious censorship. It is the most effective, and it is the most fraudulently denied. It is better understood as “push throttling.” The “push” algorithm decides which content to show you and which to deprioritize. When a wrong-think user is identified, they are “push throttled” or “shadow banned,” so that their content exists, but only a fraction of the community will ever see their content.
They effectively communicate in a small silo. Their small group of friends communicate with each other, so it seems as though they are just unpopular. In reality, content from “trusted,” “reputable,” “NewsGuard” sources is simply crowding them out and burying their content at the bottom of feeds, where few will ever see it, or else big tech will only promote it to a small and select few subscribers.
Although there are sophisticated ways to reverse engineer the social media “push throttling” and prove their totalitarian thought control, you can even do simple experiments to demonstrate it for yourself.
Buy a cheap device with cash. Create new user profiles that have never been used on your home or work networks, and only on the new device. Only use public internet (like café WiFi). Never connect the device to another network. Never log in to any website or social media or app with any old user profiles.
Spend a few months posting from NewsGuard “trusted” sources – WaPo, NYT, CNN, NPR, etc. Build a group of a few hundred to over a thousand friends. In month three, begin posting from push-throttled sources (like Hoover.org, Heritage.org, aei.org, PragerU.com) that are not overtly banned (like InfoWars). Overtly banned sources will bias the public reaction to your posts. Neutral-PR domains make for a better experiment. If you’d like a reference list of push-throttled sites, contact Alvarism privately. It’s an effective big tech blacklist.
You will discover that your 60-120 “likes” and dozens of comments get throttled to 10-30 likes and a handful of comments. The AI has effectively push-throttled you for contributing wrong-think to the community. Not only will your posts from Heritage and Hoover get minimized, you will now be associated with wrong-think, and you will be push-throttled forevermore.
The whitewash of Big Tech censorship
65. Tech companies and their whitewashers in the media will deceive you with a few items of disinformation. They’ll say that very few channels/profiles are censored. They’ll say that channels from left to right wing are censored. What they won’t tell you is that there are thousands of useless channels. They won’t tell you that the majority of the channels they censor have small audiences and are quite meaningless in terms of influence.
66. The objective influence of what they censor is all-important. What content do they want to hide from your eyes? If only 1% of channels provide such critical information, it is then irrelevant that YouTube lets the other 99% of content with consumer reports and travel vlogs remain unmolested by their corporate thought-police.
67. The most important information is laboriously gifted to the community from very few channels like Alvarism. YouTube finds them and silences them. The result is that historical, political, economic, and cultural knowledge with veracious justification is removed from your eyes to keep you ignorant, and to keep leftwing thought-controllers uncontested in the arena of Public Opinion.
68. Invalid studies showing censorship of right and left wing are equally flawed. They do not measure the audience and influence of the channel. They do not measure the scholarship of the channel.
In other words, a channel with hardcore academic justification is censored along with some vile hate speech venue with very few subscribers. In the “study,” it looks as though there is no bias, because they can claim that they censored a hundred “antifa” violent communist channels alongside Steven Crowder.
In reality there is massive bias. Steven Crowder has 4 million viewers, and hardcore research. The antifa communist channels have a few thousand subscribers and nothing but emotive vile propaganda.
69. They target influential conservatives, who have done nothing wrong, they refuse to justify their censorship with logic and debate, and they hide behind irrelevant censorship of meaningless channels to pretend as if “it’s fair.”
Steven Crowder’s demonetization by YouTube is one of the most sickening examples. Can we admit the truth that LGBT activists constantly satirize macho men, tradition, masculinity, and Christians? They are not accused of Christophobia, misandry, neophilia, and hate speech in the process, are they?
Steven Crowder, was demonetized for satirizing gay culture with caricature voice acting. It is no different than what LGBT does all of the time. There is no “paralyzing fear,” of gays, as homophobia is not a real thing, and at most there is some ridicule and animosity. While LGBT are given the privilege to express their derision of masculinity and tradition, everywhere and anywhere, anyone mocking LGBT is treated like a heretic in the Middle Ages ready to be burned at a rainbow-decorated stake.
Google and its YouTube buddies are disgustingly un-American for being so immoral and unintelligent to lack comprehension of this logic. Maybe some day, their miseducated employees will read Voltaire:
70. As you might imagine, the demonetization and overt censorship of profiles is the most obvious form of tech thought control.
Since 2008, technology has created great advantage for campaign victory. In previous articles, we have noted the nonprofits that process, solicit, and distribute donations. We will not rehash technology and loopholes involved.
71. The tech industry’s overwhelming favoritism towards democrats and doubling of Republican cash in key races, has enabled them to hire the most sophisticated and large tech teams. In 2008, Barack Obama’s tech superiority connected email, PR, cell phones, websites, and social media. They “converted online activity to offline action.”
72. Obama spent double the amount of money as McCain to win only 15% more votes than McCain. That amount of money went a long way to buy tech superiority as well, to get the edge he needed to win. Why people see the Republicans as the party of wealth and money is only an item of ignorance, when Democrats outspend Republicans time-after-time, favored by tech, academia, unions, banks, billionaires, and entertainment.
73. The MIT “reputable” journal fails to mention that Obama used micro-donation fraud. They say nothing of the Chinese super-bundler, Robert Roche, investigated by the Government Accountability Institute. While the democrat witch-hunters have failed to prove Trump’s collusion with Russia or Ukraine, the GAI has already demonstrated Obama’s collusion with China. How much of Obama’s money came from Chinese MSS channels, and billionaire micro-donation scamming, we may never know.
74. In 2012, Obama’s money, power, and connections were elevated to the next level. He was able to assemble a “dream team of nerds” from Facebook, Twitter, and Google to build software that gave him significant advantage. They applied data science to micro-target districts and media buys. They used analytic models to personalize social media messaging based on social media activity.
75. Romney’s campaign could not hire a competitive tech team, nor pilfer tech advantage from the tech giants, and their Orca software was a grand bust. The secretive employees that developed it, with rumors that “Microsoft helped them,” created ill omens. Romney was willing to trust the employees of MSNBC’s controller with his campaign software? Are Republicans this desperate, or simply blinded by popularity bias in their hiring? If the technologist comes from Big Tech, they must be trustworthy? Why doesn’t Romney hire the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation technologists for their next political endeavor? Business intelligence at its best! Such executive management wisdom! It’s a wonder that Romney got clobbered.
76. In 2016, Hillary Clinton inherited Obama’s tech superiority. Although she had a clear tech advantage, she still lost. Trump employed decentralized business modeling, using technology as a set of tools rather than a command center. It was enough to do the job, even at a disadvantage. The 2016 election is a reminder that electoral software superiority is only one factor, and does not guarantee electoral victory. Trump employed sufficient technology that did not sabotage his campaign like Romney, but got the job done.
77. As a reminder, electoral software is only a piece of tech superiority. Campaigns have less influence on the other technologies mentioned in this article.
78. In the present day and beyond, data science, artificial intelligence, and vendor marketplaces for candidates will enhance a well-established tech stack for political campaigning.
79. While much of this technology may seem universal and not specific to Virginia, the tech superiority for democrats impacts all elections, local and national. Beyond the tech itself, a culture of expertise and human capital that knows how to take advantage of it, is all-important. Those Human Resources and training models trickle down from national to local political operations.
80. The tech companies love to hide behind their status as “private businesses,” with contractual law. The fact is that they are not private businesses in a true sense. Whether MDDS grants to Google, or In-Q-Tel financing for Facebook, tech companies have built themselves on billions of tax subsidies, privileges, write-offs, and grants – all coerced from the US taxpayer’s serf labor.
Much is said about “anti-trust,” but it neglects the more significant betrayal of public financing upon which the tech companies built themselves.
If the tax dollars that built transnational tech corporations are sincerely justified by “helping Americans,” there is only one solution at this point:
81. For Fortune 500 tech companies (or those that have ever been listed as such), present-day value of all historical tax grants, subsidies, and special tax deductions, and all revenues deriving from those privileges, must be estimated. An independent board of private sector technologists with civic expertise will form a venture capital group. They will take the present-day value from those tech companies, and use it to finance competing technology startups run by people who have never been employed as managers by Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple, or any tech company in the Fortune 500.
There is no epic conclusion or summary of this series. The purpose was to comprehensively expose the reader to all aspects of political advantage and failure that contributed to the epic defeat of Republicans in 2019 Virginia. Alvarism encourages the reader to ponder all of the factors and brainstorm actions they can take to correct the problems.
82. Democrats now control all of Virginia governance for the first time since 1993. There is not one factor in this series that did it alone, although some were more impactful than others.
83. Democrats should observe these charts I made from VPAP data:
They need to realize that for all of their chicanery, manipulations, and dishonest campaigning tactics – including gerrymandering, organizational superiority, illicit financing, cash superiority, demographic exploitation, ex-felon voting, tech superiority, and mindless registration of vulnerable misinformed voters – they do not have legitimate citizen mandate from Virginians. For all of that chicanery, they only obtained 1.2 million votes from 8.5 million residents of Virginia.
84. Only 14% of Virginians affirm Democratic power in Virginia despite enjoying the privilege of full-spectrum campaign superiority over the Republicans. That is a small minority of residents. If the Democrats do not understand the extent of their illegitimate manipulation of these elections, and their lack of true mandate from residents, they will shove ideologically unjustified policies down the throats of Virginians, and generate chaos and discord.
A wise Democrat will admit these facts, and proceed in humility and restraint.
When Republicans are able to get their act together and counteract the electoral subversion of the democrats, the comeuppance against democrat manipulation will be exponentially epic. If democrats are wise, they will tread lightly in their political monopoly for the next few years.
85. As for Republicans, they should review all of these factors and start to design actions to fix their failures. This series defined the problems. It is for other readers and leaders to verify the problem definitions and brainstorm actions to solve this massive failure.
Those Virginia Republicans who contributed to these failures should resign and give way to erudite citizens who can better do the job at which they failed for years.