Big Brother Is at the Core
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.


Big Brother Is at the Core


Stay calm and don’t worry that your every move is monitored. Neither the government nor Dr. Evil would dare infringe on your rights further. Right? With all that’s going on in America these days it seems like we’ve been conditioned to accept anything policymakers or corporations throw at us. But the big question needling me is, “What are we allowing it?” Here’s the first report in a series on

I just got through reading a very “matter of fact” story about our phones listening to us and reporting back to Big Brother or whoever. And the story is not all over the front page of The New York Times, or much of anyplace else. Since whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed how the NSA and our president spies on all of us, we’ve just moved on to the next infringement of our rights with only a whiney whimper in between. Sam Nichols tells us on Vice of his personal experience backed up by Senior Security Consultant Dr. Peter Hannay’s revelations on audio “triggers” that Google or Apple program into your phone to eavesdrop on you. Like, it’s no big deal, right? Tell a friend something in confidence and the IRS or FBI can be at your door within minutes – or Facebook may be trading your most intimate secrets to Qatar or the Amazon sales team. But maybe it is me who is overreacting? Let me quote directly from the Vice story here:

“For your smartphone to actually pay attention and record your conversation, there needs to be a trigger, such as when you say “hey Siri” or “okay Google.” In the absence of these triggers, any data you provide is only processed within your own phone. This might not seem a cause for alarm, but any third-party applications you have on your phone—like Facebook for example—still have access to this “non-triggered” data. And whether or not they use this data is really up to them.”

Nichols and Dr. Hannay were discussing how phone listening intelligence can be used to serve you ads for the stuff you talk about with your pals. But to understand how jacked-up, evil, and even illegal these actives are we need to step back a few years to when I was involved with the Silicon Valley set and something called Web 2.0.

About the time digital guru Tim O’Reilly coined the term “Web 2.0,” I was just starting to write content and technology analysis for any number of highly influential technology blogs. His introduction to the notion of a second iteration of the WWW was run in 2005 and entitled “Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” This quasi-renaissance O’Reilly and the rest of us evangelized was supposed to elevate humanity so far past the failures of the Dot Com era, that’s Mars and Pluto should have been beneath our feet by now. Only there was one big problem. Web 2.0 never became the expansive paradigm all us tech gurus were selling like soap. It never was intended to be humanity’s salvation – but instead a means to enslave us all. Some of you reading here are either lost by now, or you’re thinking “Oh no, not another conspiracy theory.” For those ready to skip out to go watch CNN, let me use Web 2.0’s high priest’s own sermon to illustrate fact. Here is how O’Reilly sought to differentiate Dot Com digital wonders from the Web 2.0 salvation us tech zombies were led to spread about. Read what we skipped understanding back in 2005, how humanity was to revolve around the bright, warm core of the digital construct:

“Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.”

Now this “core” is the key for understanding how the NSA and U.S. presidents get to bust the Constitution of the United States wide open. The core, you see, is Big Brother from the famous book 1984 by George Orwell. We’ve no space here for discussing planned failures and orchestrated breakthrough “innovations” here. But let me point out that when Netscape lost out to the emerging Google giant, the founders of Web 1.0’s behemoth IPO walked off with $1.2 billion 1999 dollars when Netscape was snatched up by AOL. James Clark, one of the founders of Netscape went on to become and philanthropist and to invest in things like a new stock market called The Investors Exchange IEX, which is currently trading over 160 million shares a day. As a tongue in cheek aside, I sure hope key traders aren’t using your smart phone mic to gather investing intelligence! Sorry, it had to be said.

Back to the core, or Google, if you like. The whole notion of Tim O’Reilly’s sparkling new internet Eden was about competitive excellence and innovation. However, respite our wild enthusiasm to share in this new digital bliss, most of the Web 2.0 preaching was nothing more than technobabble and PR hype intended to rope us all into being part of a real “Matrix” (The film) of digital control. O’Reilly is a genius, make no mistake, but the fallacy that Netscape, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other brands were in real competition is a reality only adolescents adopt. Again, there’s not room for me to relate to you the stuff from the trenches of the so-called “Search Engine War” that ended with Google’s being supreme (the physical core). Over 100 innovations, some of them Einstein brilliant, fell by the wayside for one reason and one reason only. The “core” construct was the mission all along. So, Google (like Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook) was propped up and made to win.

We could take a look at the original Google angel investors like Ram ShriRam,Mike Moritz, John Doerrand other front men who took in vast sums in order to create the icons we all worship today, but they are the subjects of future parts of this discussion. What’s important for readers to understand right now is that this “core” of the digital control mechanism I am talking about sits in a shielded envelope of money – massive truckloads of money. Politicians, old soldiers, scientists, stock brokers, and a celebrity list of bankers funnel huge sums into this “Brother Machine” we see the tail and footprints of. Assuming for the moment that all my assertions are correct, some of you will recall Google execs who lied and told us they’d never do evil. And today you’ll be well served to pay attention to the company’s own employees demonstrated recently because the company was making AI for military purposes. Allegations that Google and other technology firms are playing along with the so-called “deep state” bear study here, as does the notion behind the scenes players created these tech giants in the first place. Like I said, I’ll address all these issues in the segments to come. For now let’s refocus on this unbelievable stoppage of our constitutional rights.

Now that it’s been established that many of the most important tech brands spy on us and misuse our private information, I think a recent experience of my own may shed more light on this abuse of power. What if I told you I was used like a guinea pig for testing how censorship would work? If you were Facebook, for instance, how would you go about ensuring both the capability and the acceptance of a spying/censoring mechanism? You’d test it on somebody knowledgeable and even influential in the space, that’s how. Let’s say you have a user tied inextricably to both the developmental/technical side of social media, who is coincidentally accused of being Vladimir Putin’s number one troll? You’d have the perfect lab rat if you wanted to ensure an election like the one Emmanuel Macron won in France. The method would be simple. First, target the profile of your test dummy. Next, you’d send a specially created bot crawler(WebCrawler) to examine all the submitted links from your subject. Then you’d use algorithms or manual methods to exclude any “sentiment” (opinion) from the larger public argument. By targeting someone influential you can more easily determine how big the public outcry might be. For if an influencer cannot blow the whistle on you – your little mission is safe. In my case I thought that Marine Le Pen would make a much better choice for French president instead of another Rothschild banking fop. So the system was tried, not only on me but on colleagues in alternative media worldwide. We all knew about it, we all announced the new system, but the public never really got the message (or did not care).

Big Brother Is at the Core

Macron won, the American deep state was happy – and the “test” of the core censoring strategy was a success. Now we are into the second or third phase of Orwellian madness. Now we are in the phase where plausible deniability and disruption are part of the overall strategy to “balance” the web. The image above is of a recent ad I tried to place to help one of my articles about the Gaza/Israel madness. There was nothing outlandish in the story, only opinion backed by some hard evidence. Facebook’s new method involves making it harder to promote independent ideas not in line with “the narrative” …

I’ve many more examples to show but this one should get the reader started toward understanding what is going on in plain sight. You see, we’ve let these people (call them what you will) proceed unencumbered toward greater and greater control of us. In the name of liberal values our rights are being taken away one by one. Consider the first mutterings about safety on the internet back when Web 2.0 was young. Those concerns were washed away even as our secure information was stolen completely. Next the Web 2.0 preachers demanded that Youtube should be able to show horrific death and destruction – all in the name of transparency and freedom. Now you get to watch some child get his or her head chopped off. Talk about desensitizing the world. And it was all a test. A test just to see if you would put up with it all. Schoolyard bullying 101.

Unbelievable. Unfathomable. A catastrophe for humanity is what is unfolding before our eyes. And I am ashamed to have evangelized even one smartphone, a social platform, or the big lie that Google was some altruistic humanity mission. Until my next report, I hope you will do your own research and your own thinking on all this. And do not use The New York Times or Google.

Author: Phil Butler