Mike Benz: The Real Reason for Pavel Durov’s Arrest, and the Deep State’s Plan to Control Our Speech
02:20:08 Share

For over fifty years, billington s legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter weather had to burlington for name, brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member. Sock up on coats, sweaters and accessory before the, so you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comparably warm up at your news, bringing location less than one mile away.

Fairlington deals brands, wow. The twenty twenty four f one fifty lightning drug gets dirty and runs clean with an E P A estimated range of three hundred and twenty miles with the available extended range battery, is the only electric vehicle that an f one fifty visit for dog comm lash. F one fifty lightning to learn more excludes black to miles p estimated driving range based on range varies with conditions such as internal environment vehicles, hc voltage, battery state.

the big tech company's sensor are content. I hate to tell you that is still going on in twenty twenty four. But you know what, they can't sensor live events. That's why we are hitting the road on a fall tour for the entire month of september, coast to coast, we will be in cities across nine states.

We will be in panic x with Russell brand or anaya, california for a vagrom swamping color springs with toc garboard so lake city with a glen back tosa, oklahoma with denboro geno. Kansas city with Megan Kelly, which ita would truly curt, no walking with very elder rosenberg. Texas with jessy Kelly.

Grand rapids with kid rock party, pennsylvania with jd vans reading pencil of any with alex Jones forward texas with rose and bar rainfall south Caroline with margry Taylor Green sund rise ford with john rich Jackson bill forward with Donald trumpet junior. You can a tickets at tucker carlson dot com. See there.

Welcome the tucker carlson show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere else. And they're not sensitive, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do IT honestly ly check out all of our content and talk her crosson dot com. Here's the episode.

So this feels like, uh, you know, there a lot of arrests in the last a few years, including of a number of people I know, you know, get a rest of the polio reasons but the jAiling of the foundering owner of telegram feels like a pivot point, feels like a moment in history and probably a harbinger of, you know, the next few years or decades. Hope i'm wrong um so the question is like, what is this? How did this happen? France, arrest them on a fuel stop.

Piece of french citizen, by the way, but he lives in dui. Arrest him. That's a big step. Very hard for a bystander without direct knowledge being me to believe that micron twitter would have done that without the encouragement or at least agreement of the by administration. You were the first person I thought of, um got you hear fast as we could so i'm going to to stand back and would very much like to hear you explain what you think happened in this arrest, how what happened, what IT means, who is involved .

we don't know yet um in part of what i've been talking about which is the suspected role of the U. S.

Embassy in the arrest or is as you put IT I think perfectly we don't know if IT was participation or approval or nothing and i'll play devils advocate against my own my own argument here, but I feel compelled to make this argument because we're not getting the answer from the congress who should be getting IT for us, which is to say that entity like the house far n. Affairs committee, if IT was committed to free speech, would be interrogating whether or not there was A U. S.

Embassy back channel to french law enforcement or french intelligence or the french government in terms of doing this, because this is a pattern of practice that the U. S. Embassy is pursued all over the world, and particularly in europe through brands branding like anti corruption or what not and this is something even dating back to our mize.

And when he was the ambassador to the check republic, you champion these sort of corruption, anti corruption reforms, uh, from the check government to arrest the the politicians who essentially opposed the state department agenda there. This is very common to go to places like the journal democracy, which is the academic journal for uh for the national demand for democracy, which is a very nice, the most notorious cii cut out in the whole arsenal. They have all academic journals on how to push the poland government to arrest uh the politicians from the P I S party, from the long order party ah, especially in in the judicial system to arrest them.

Yes yes to to mass arrest. We have we've a concept in american statecraft called transitional justice, which is this idea that essentially after the us. Overthrows a country we makes we arrest all of the opposition politicians, opposition judges, uh, opposition journalists, propaganda, a spread ers. In order to stop the reemergence of threats to democracy, you make IT a one party state so .

you can be a democracy, right? Well, this is this, china pushing this for the, just to be clear.

or the united states, the states, and we do that to to stabilize the democratic institutions and effective, make IT cheaper for the united states to manage, because you don't need to manage the constant recording threat of the party, you just bank wished. So this is, this was something that that the U. S. State department was spearheading years before trump got into office. And IT was so effective that these same castle characters are back for trump nor mazing was one who speared, headed, you know, the impeach we drafted articles of impeachment before trump was even uh even took the oath of office and also let the uh you know elements of the you, the nineteen ukraine and peach ment, uh the last fare that's currently being done with the ninety plus founds against trump so this is this is a instrument of statecraft, the use of prosecutions in order to bring leverage against and to get rid of passing people who oppose the state department's priorities. But in the specific case of telegram.

there's there's a lot going on here, possibly quick. We could know a lot more about the by administrations involvement through the U. S. Embassy in paris if a single house committee controlled by republicans would just jump on IT yeah I think that's what you said. Yes.

yes, absolutely. And the problem is, is our congress is not sticking for us as as this is happening all over the world. Just this year of the drama around brazil has been a huge issue for elon mosen ex.

And when we go, the house held hearing on IT and the house for n affairs committee titled the hearing was brazil a crisis of democracy, rule of law, governance question mark, but they did not interrogate the the U. S. State department's role in censorship in brazil.

IT was actually the U. S. State department who capacity built, spending tens of millions of dollars the entire censorship ecosystem in brazil. They spend tens of millions of dollars paying brazilian journalist, brazilian sensors, brazilian fact checkers, uh event members of the of the legal scholarship associated with brazil's censorship court and effectively pressured through that N G south power swarm brazil to set up the entire censorship architecture IT. Now, has they set that up?

Why would the U. S. Government, which represents the U. S. Constitution and democracy, be trying to end them? You can have democracy with censorship of by definition. So why would we be trying to end democracy in country after country? Like what is the point of that?

Well, this is one of the great ironies of american statecraft in the post twenty sixteen era. Uh, free speech has been an instrument of stay craft since for for U. S.

Diplomacy, military, an intelligence purposes since the one thousand hundred and forty days free speech around the world has been something we've champion in part because we believe IT, but uh in part in large part I should note ah because this this is how you can capacity build resistance movements or political movements or permille ary movements in countries that the U. S. A department seeks to attain political control over.

If there is no free speech, then there is no political movement that you can capacity build to regime change the government, or to maintain elements of control over the existing government. And so this is why the state department capacity built all these ngos. The U.

S. A. Does IT as well, like freedom house. And in the whole wing of, for example, the twenty six ngos who condemned russia for attempting to ban telegram in in twenty eighteen. Why would twenty six us.

Government funded ngos all say that russia was attacking free speech in russia by threatening to black telegram? What was because the U. S.

State department was using telegram as through its the power of its encrypted, you know, chat in all the functionality in the fact that so much brush was using to format protests and riots within russia, just as they did in bellers, just as they did iran, just as they didn't hang come, just as they attempted to do in china. So telegram is this very, very powerful vehicle for the U. S.

State department to be able to mobilize protest, to be able to galvanize political support against authoritarian countries. This is why the U. S.

Government loved telegram so much from twenty fourteen to twenty twenty, because IT was a powerful way to evade state control over media or state surveilLance over private chance, because the the private functions and anonymous fording, all these unique features of telegram allow IT to have U. S. Funded political groups or political dissidents get tens of thousands of people to their cause with relative impunity.

It's it's effectively unstable by a regime like lua shanker in the summer of twenty twenty when the U. S. Government was effectively orchestrating a color revolution in below, only take a sip first, second.

Telegram was the main channel for that. The national democrat democracy was actually paying the main administrators of the telegram channels who were orchestrating those riots. Those protests.

not not employees of telegram, but people you buy.

Okay.

so people are using IT, organizing others to use IT.

you would get a telegram channel with, you know, a million people in IT. And the administrator of IT would be on national democratic cracking payroll and the national diamond for democracy. Now, even the head of IT, which is A C.

I. I. Cut out IT, was basically created when in a letter from the C.

I, A director Williams casey in thousand nine hundred and eighty three is a means for the C, I, A to get control a get functions back that IT has lost after the scandals of the of the church committee hearing in one nine seventy five, one thousand nine hundred and seventy six the recognition ration wanted to be able to get back the powers that the the democrats in the late one thousand and seventy uh considered to be human rights abuses and too much clothing dig stuff so they put IT under the banner of the national David democracy as a public facing ng with A C. I back channel. Again, the C, I called for this.

The founders of of the national download democracy even openly, even even openly say that they do what they do now, what the C. I, A used to do. But they have, they was literally scrubs from the, from the legislative, from the, the original bill, that that the C. I would not coordinate IT. I mean, this is, this is one is one of the most prolific C, I, A cut out in the arsenal and they they were the ones who are paying the telegram channel administrators who are who are organizing these know the attempt to overthrow the the bell ucc government. And i'm not even waging in on you know the Normative question about whether or not that's a good or bad thing.

I will it's terrible.

All I care about is freedom of speech on the internet. What people have to understand, and this is the point i've been screaming into the wind for eight years now, is that internet censorship is not some domestic event done by domestic actors, uh, intermediate by a domestic government and in domestic tech platform policies, internet censorship came the united states and has been exported around the world because free speech is a casualty of a proxy war of the blob against populism.

And what I mean, the blob is our foreign policy establishment, which is primarily concentrated within the U S. A department, the U S. Intelligence services like the CIA, the pentagon, USA and and the soft power swarm army that we have through our ngos and state department C I A USA funded um civil society institutions.

And what happened was is and we've had this long range plan to seize your asia. Russia has seventy five trillion dollars worth of natural resources in IT the night stays only forty five trillion I me just to put in perspective how bountiful know the region that we are so preoccupied with is. And if you recall, no, no less than linsey gram.

We, frustrated at the lack of republican political support for craine ukraine. Aid finally employed, sort of took the mask off a few months ago. I said, listen, even you don't believe in democracy.

Ukraine got fourteen trillion dollars worth of of natural resources. So even if it's just for cynical self serving purposes, the us. Should support the warm ukraine in order to control fourteen trillion dollars worth of mineral wealth and oil and gas wealth.

And this is, this is the story of your asia. After after one thousand nine hundred ninety, the U. S, the U. K. And partners in nato set on, set on a quest to take political control over the territories of the former soviet union. And we're very successful until vladimir putin rose to power and began to assert energy diplomacy as a means for russia to the assert political influence over central eastern europe.

This is one of the reasons that the north stream pipeline was know the absolute eye of of the blob of our foreign policy establishment, because those financial into linkages to europe were allowing russian influence over its politics, over its economy, in Fostering diplomatic ties. All these things which which are flying the face of this long range, plan to see your raza. And so with the north stream case, you had you know sanctions on IT prior prior to IT being blown up.

Ah you know I came out in essentially leak documents from something called the integrity initiative that a that the U. K. Foreign office had been basically orchestrating orchestrating P R campaigns to get the new stream pipeline killed in twenty fifteen.

Uh and so you know IT being blown up, uh is is no surprise, no IT but understand it's because of russia's s energy diplomacy with europe, which is what gave rise to this whole need to kill russia's energy connections. And let if I can just flush this out a little bit if you can get rid of russian energy relations with with your up. This was what the theory was.

Then you bankrupt russia. You also strip them of the military industrial complex. Russia is the military, uh, enemy of the united states, not just in europe now, but if you recall, the obama ministration try to try to invade, try to invade syria.

And the only reason they were unable to do so as because russia military backed up the assad government and is the same thing in africa. You know, africa is one third of the world's natural resource wealth. There is a math scramble for the natural resources in africa and russia is the pain of both the U.

S. And french military forces there. If you could bankrupt russia through getting taking out gas prom and and in its oil exports than you, you get rid of russia's ability to be in an armed supplier to the rebel groups there. Now getting back to the telegram case. Telegram is an instrument of statecraft and is also in an instrument of military and intelligence projection.

So on the state craft side, we just talked about how telegram has been the darling of the CIA, the state department USA h for Operations stretching from belarus to inside of moscow to iran, hongkong g to china and all over the world because it's got a billion users. And so it's very easy to get all the native population who you're trying to recruit to your political cause under the channels they are already using and then also give them the anonymity and the and the know encryption safety uh to be able to organize and express their political support safely, relatively safely. But the problem so the problem is because telegram is also an open playing field, because pavel has not linux ed either to the united states or to russia, IT is also allowed russian propaganda to propagate.

And this is a problem right now in ukraine, just two weeks after your interview with povl, a radio free europe, which is in an institution that was created by the C. I. A.

And IT was run directly, but for its first twenty years by the CIA, just two weeks after your interview with possible called are called uh telegram, a spy in every ukrainians pocket and made the argument that that ukraine needs to rest control over telegram in in the laid out the following reasons for doing so and said that, uh seventy seventy five percent of ukrainians currently use telegram and they have been using telegram. M, this is up from twenty percent just a few years ago because of potholes. Solidarity with the concept of free speech has been highly trusted for many years.

But they're not sure if there's a russian back channel now. And they cite several reasons around poles uh potential financing uh from a from a bond race several years ago that may have had russian investors in IT. They like the fact that russian internal documents prot promote the use of telegram for its own military, the fact that uh, over fifty percent of russia itself uses telegram, the fact that the fact so the fact that the russian military uses IT safely and has no problem with IT, and the fact that, uh, there may be russian financing of of power.

This is the argument that they make that perhaps IT was compromise. Perhaps the reason russia dropped its attempt to ban telegram after the twenty eighteen affair may have been because an agreement was secretly reached. And if that is the case, then that would essentially make all of the military Operations and all of the statecraft and and secret channels that ukraine I is currently using, A, B, spied on. You are all communications, the entire war. Maybe the reason ukraine I is losing is because russia, I knows everything ukraine is doing.

We hear a lot from viewers about big tech censorship, and those reports are more frequent than ever right now. Sorry, meaning shutting down your access to information, not wise or misinformation, but true things.

It's only the truth that they sensor facts that get in the way of the lives are trying to tell you that that affected this, of course, is interfering in the twenty twenty four presidential actions that whether censoring more than ever now, because mistakes are even higher, you probably not shocked by the, but the specific examples of IT dw, throw you back a little bit. We've seen screen shots in video showing how we, google search, learn more about the attempts of assassin on Donald trump. Instead, push users to information on Harry truman or bob marley or the pope, anything other than the relevant truth, which is that they just shot trump in the face.

They don't want you to know that because I might help trump. We see examples where facebook Marks true photos of a bloody and defiant trump as misleading. Somehow, these pictures were relied and then limited their visibility.

It's AI assistant explicit, deny the shooting ever took place. This is insanity, but it's at the core of big tax editorial policy, which is denying the truth to you in order to control the outcome of this president election, the some democracy. We seen examples for a generic search for information Donald trump was automatically refreshed to show positive stories about, commonly, Harris instead.

Is there any clear example of election interference? So what do you do about IT? Well, parler has been down the road.

Parler pulled right off the internet for telling the truth. But it's back and it's reformed. Its lifelong on waivers, commitment to free speech on parler, the bill of rights lives the first moment. Israel el, you can say what you think because you're in a human being, in american citizen and not a slave.

On parler, users can freely express themselves, tell the truth, express their conscience, and connect with others who are doing the same, and they will not be interfered with, they will not be censored. Design to support a wide range of viewpoints. Everyone is welcome on parler.

Polar is committed to ensuring that everybody is heard. And so it's become a place for independent journal. Journalism is protected and respected, protected because it's respected.

So is this censorship by big tech intensifies? Standing up for your god given right as an american to say what you think is a central. We're on polar.

That's why we're on polar. Our handle is at tucker carlson, and we encourage you to join us there. You have the right to say what you believe.

So is every american. And you can do IT on public at the polar APP. Today, hills dell college offers many great free online courses, including a recent one on marxism, socialism and communism.

Today, marxism goes by different names to make itself seem less dangerous. Names like critical race theory, gender theory and decode ization. No matter the names, this online core shows its the same marxism that works to destroy private property and that will lead to famines, show trials and gulags. Start learning online for free at tucker for hills dale outcome. That's taker F O R hildale dot com.

You've been prescribed medication for B, P, H, or enlarged prostate. You don't like the idea of a daily medication for the rest of your life. If you have to take IT forever is IT really worth IT.

But that's what the doctor ordered. And symptoms from B, P, H were negatively impacting life. A week flow, an urgent need to go erupted sleep.

Now you feel stuck between medications that aren't really doing the trick and the idea of invasive surgery. There may be another option, a minimally invasive procedure by most insurance called the year live system. The year live system may provide up to three times the symptom relief as a common B P H medication.

Based on the early data from my head to head, the man forty five and over, no B P H 点 to learn more and find a eurolire system trained doctor near you。 Most common side of extra temporary can include discomfort in urting urgency, inability to control the age, palpi in some blood in any rare set of including bleating and infection may lead to a serious outcome and may require intervention. Minimum invasive, your live system, go to no B P H meds dot com junior are receiving letters from the IOS claiming you go back taxes as penalties and interest fees pile up.

The IOS gives, you know, clear path or lotion. Don't speak to them on your own. They are not your friends. To reach a team of licensed tax professional s that can help you reduce, settle and resolve your tax matters, go to T N U S A that come and check them out, solve your tax problems today, one eight hundred seventy eight eight eight eight eight, or visit N U S A dot com that one eight hundred seventy eight eight .

eight eight eight. Yeah, I just can't get over the fact that the bite administration, the U. S. Government, was you and I pay for, which is supposed to be defending the freedom of speech above all other freedoms, is encouraging its proxy government, the ukrainean government, to like cease or take over a media out what I mean that so why is that that illegal?

Well mean this has been part partial of our diplomacy for for decades but it's .

just criminal.

Well if you recall when nato um not the first use of military hard power in its entire history, IT was created one thousand and forty nine. The first time I ever fired offensive bullet was in nineteen ninety five. In one thousand ninety.

Well one of the things we did when we bomb when we bombed yugoslavia was we took out its its state media prop, uh, its state media propaganda work and its state media child state, state T. V, its state radio broadcaster. We bombed the headquarters of the media building and killed dozens of people in the process. Yes, instead that was fair game because they were a keynote in yugoslavia war effort, and so we killed their journalists in order to slow down their meeting.

So the whole idea that there is like a freak change of information or a battle of ideas, and made the, you know, best idea when, which is really kind of the foundation of american civil society, I mean, that's what this whole project is based on.

Yes, they don't mean that at all.

In fact, that they're moving in exactly the opposite direction. It's something, sorry, sounds so shocked, but I am shocked.

I hate this is something for fifty, sixty years was very useful to us when other countries did not have robust propaganda or communications infrastructure themselves. And one of the reasons that voice of amErica and radio for europe and radio liberty and others were so effective at the time was because other countries didn't really have their own a developed native programing in radio or T V or print.

And so the ability to project that with limited options allowed saturation of the C I N. Narrative in those regions. I just I mean.

this is I don't really any desire to talk about IT, but I I can even control my substance my my father was the director, the voice of america. I grew up hearing about this. Um you know every day the dinner table um know the whole idea was at least the public facing idea, the public the articulated idea, you know new news, you know, ideas, information, facts and allowing the populations of these countries access to this and they can make up their own mind. I mean, IT really was part of at least publicly and i'm very aware, you know I know was more complicated than that, but I really believe that that this was part of the battle of ideas. And we were winning because we have Better ideas.

Well, we allowed free speech because we were winning. And and this is, this is the issue now, which is everything changed in twenty fourteen in terms of our free speech diplomacy tool, IT.

We set up a swarm army of of proof free speech, N G, S of side institutions, university centers, journalists, legal groups, in order to pressure in lobby all foreign countries around the world to create open society for journalists so that those could be penetrated by U. S. A craft intelligence. And until the free and open internet started to backfire on the state department, that was the unequipped position of the because their ideas .

suck and nobody wants trans kids is the truth and they don't want in more frequent rainbow flags. And maybe you sold the product people liked like mobiles or big max or leave I genes or freedom um or like hot bond girls or whatever you're selling, maybe it's something that people actually want. But if you're selling training m and you know gay race coming is nobody actually wants that.

Nobody wants that right? Well, well, if support is not earned, IT has to be installed in this.

exactly. Nicely put.

And this is one of the, this is one of of the great issues here, which is that it's these very free speech institutions that were capable by the state department that have all incorporated this censorship element. So we still do have a lot of free speech diplomacy. Just two years ago, we sanctioned the government, iran a, the government be run for having the timid to sensor its own internet.

This is so funny because, you know, our own department of homeland security was doing the exact same thing to sensor americans, to us, to us. So I mean, technically, the united, they should be kicked off the dollar for, you know, for doing, you know, exactly what we accuse foregone countries of doing. But we selectively promote either free speech or censorship, depending on what's most advantages for political control in any particular country.

So for example, if bolsin ara were to have rose, rose back to power in brazil, have no doubt about IT, you know, free speech would be back on the menu, and bolton r would be accused of censorship, know over jay walking on a random street corner, and we would be pumping up through ngos and in university centers and journalists on pay role. We'd be pumping one hundred million dollars into into brazil free speech economy in order to create antis and our own sentiment, right? But you know, one of the things beginning, I come back to this .

brazil case because, well, as one of the things i've learned from you over the past couple of years, i've won a lot from you. But one big picture idea that I didn't fly, appreciate how I wasn't you carefully, was that our foreign policy drives our domestic policy.

There is no such thing as domestic policy.

I didn't think about weighting. The soviet is down the problem because we are an island of freedom here in united states. And your reporting and analysis suggests exactly, you just said there is no domestic. Everything that happens in this country is an out the function of our management of the world.

Yes, there is no such thing is domestic policy, because every country's domestic policy is another country's foreign policy, whatever you do in the united states, or whatever any foregone, a foreign country wants to change its labor laws. what? Guess what? That impacts the bottom line of U.

S. Corporations who employ labor polls there. A foreign country wants to nationalize its graphite industry. But guess what? Now amErica can make pencils. Everything that every internal policy of every other country on earth impacts the bottom line of some U. S.

National champion now are how the state department to finds national interest is essentially the college of corporations and financial firms that are U. S. National champions.

So for example, no, if if something happy, if if georgia or iser bijon does some of the impacts, the bottom line of exon mobile or several or haliburton, that becomes a state department priority in order to protect the U. S. National interest against this nationalization law that's happening in in georgia or eyes are by jon and is the same thing with every industry.

And so I do I do want to get back to this, this sort of exporting the first amendment concept that was such a big part of american aircraft. I think almost no one. There's almost no Better example of this than what happened with the state department's global engagement center, which is the main censorship artery of the U.

S. A department. Also works with a lot of million of these censorship gos in the, in U.

S. aid. In this whole network. IT IT was set up by rick tangle.

And you, rick tankle say that his job was to export the first amendment former, imagine either of time magazine and is when Donald trump is elected twenty sixteen, you know, the guy whose job was to export the first amendment? Roden oped, I believe in the washington post actually calling for an end of the first amendment, that that he needs to mere that what europe and in other countries have, and any wrote a book making the same case, right? right? But again, this is the guy who was the undersecretary of public affairs.

This is a very evil man, rick tangle.

Well, the point, the point that i'm trying to make here is the the free speech, absolutely, who was in charge of U. S. Government projection of free speech. All IT took was one election for for the entire diplomacy architecture that you know that this principal free speech was based on to get completely boomed out.

All IT took was Donald trump getting elected for an arguably two hundred years of of of the first minute principle, in seventy years of this principle of exporting the first amendment to be entirely discarded because IT was leading to the wrong kinds of people being elected. Free speech on the internet was blamed for the loss of the Philippines election by the state department in twice sixteen. IT was blamed for the events of brake.

This is why the U. S. A. Department funds so many london based ngos and university centers and influence Operations to stop njal for in the brain movement IT was blamed for the rise of trump t in two thousand and sixteen.

He was blamed for the rise of both and arrow is blamed for for the the rise of of moti in india, in country after country, the free in an open internet, unfiltered alternative news, the rise of citizen journalists, the rise of of citizens in those countries who have larger voices than C. I, A backed media, then U. S.

A. Funded media, than state department funded media has meant that the state department has lost control of those countries. And what happened was, after twenty sixteen, the technology in the networks were established to be able to add a new tool kit to american diplomacy, which is diplomacy by censorship.

And we have formal government programs at the state department dedicated to gain foreign countries to pass domestic censorship laws to stop the rise of righting populous st. Parties in those countries. I can say that again, we have formal government programs at the state department whose job is to lobby foreign countries and pressure foreign countries to pass censorship laws to stop the rise of domestic populist groups. So you have truckers in amErica whose income tax is going to pay foreign government to censor third citizens. This is, this is the sort of schizophrenia right .

now of the world becoming the union which exported poison around the world for all those years. I really felt states was on the book against that. But whether that's true or not, I don't know.

I'm trying to resume. Ss, what is true now is we're doing what they did. We're showing chaos. And turney around the world, it's like, I am so heart broken .

to see this. What's amazing, you say that because as someone who is sort of present at creation in terms of watching this or get established in spending my whole life monitoring IT and chronicling IT, they were very aware of that when they were setting this up. And when I say they, I mean nato, the U.

S. A department, the U. K. Foreign office, after the twenty sixteen election and after brags, IT, and they they began this whole consensus building.

Quest about how to get all the relevant stakeholder, from the government, from the private sector, from civil society, from the media, to all come together and create this whole society censorship coalition, whole society countermines information coalition. Technology, they come. But they were very aware of that what they were doing was exactly what they accused russia in china of doing, intensely aware.

And there was much, much handwringing in the beginning of this in late twenty sixteen, early twenty seventeen, that we need to be extremely careful as we are establishing this infrastructure that IT does not appear to be what russia in china are doing, that russia in china have a what they said was, effectively, russia and china don't have the problem that we have. They don't have rising populist movements in their countries that are opposed to the state institutions that are opposed to the state priorities that are winning political power. How do russia and china solve this problem of domestic populist insurgency? Well, they use giving their .

citizens political power.

Other words, yes.

Do they never stop in this as like, uh, since when is IT OK for the people in charge of the government to ban populism? I don't understand, when do we all agree that populism is bad? I thought the whole system was was fundamentally a popular system. The country belongs to its citizens. I thought that was the whole deal.

I can answer that because it's basically doctrine. The there has been a redefinition of democracy from meaning the the consensus of individuals to meaning the consensus of institutions. And this is a very clever, slight of hand reframing trick that they played after the twenty sixteen election in the U. S. And they were setting this up.

So just to get they're playing with revolution here. I mean, they could they've lost their legitimacy. So i'm not going to try to overthrow the U.

S. government. And fifty five, i'm not going do that. But at some point, you know someone's gonna try to do that and it's gonna be kind of hard to see whether I justified in doing that because it's not legitimate.

They their legitimacy comes from the consent of the government. That's our system. And when they longer have to consent of the government.

they're not legitimate, period. So all I care about is random of speed.

but if you have not free of speech is not a legitimate country.

So there's a lot to get to on all this that I think this is maybe actually picking up where where we were so much with when they were setting this all up. I think that actually kind of elegant double tails with the point that you just made when they were setting this up. They said, russia and china don't have this problem.

We will have A P. R, nightmare crisis of legitimacy if we simulate exactly what russian, china did do, which is top down government control. So what they did is they came up with a concept called the whole society framework that would, in order to ask your turf, a know the the appearance of a kind of bottom up organic censorship industry that the government was fund and intermediate and direct and pressure.

So this whole society concept is that is that the government is is not the sensor. IT is simply the counter back of the of the censorship ecosystem. So IT is not like russia and china, in the sense that, you know, the russian federation says this media channel is banned.

Instead, IT would be the american government paying to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, all the different censorship ecosystem players and exploiting that leverage to have that outcome arrive. Yeah and I organically and and they were very careful and establishing according to this, to this idea that what we will do is we we will be able essentially have plausible deniability. But even though we are funding IT and we're directing IT and we are pressuring everyone to join the censorship coalition.

And so so this is how you had tens of millions of dollars in the U. S. A department funding the private sector, pop up censorship mercenary firms, funding the the civil society institutions, the universities, the censorship activists, the ngos, the nonprofits, the researchers and also on the media side, and all these U.

S funded, USA funded media outlets all pushing for censorship. And and there's an elegant structure to IT, which is that the government pays the civil society institutions to do actually C I C I. A work against our citizens is why there's so many C I A.

Analysts at at the censorship universities, the censorship labs like to call emb disinfected labs, know at sixty plus U. S. Universities, all funded by the U. S. government. They do and .

assume my cable television to the everyone on all the channels.

Dhs actually on boards, in immediate organizations, into its into its counter disinformation work. And again, because media is the fourth quadrant in the whole society frameworks and government, private sector of society, media all aligned like a magnet to create the censorship outcomes. So, so there's no holes in the titanic.

No one can resist IT. No one can stop IT. This is the probe. This is. And that was so effective until elon mosk essentially burst that bubble, and until they went a little bit too far with a disinflation government board.

And finally, a certain faction within the republican party woke up and able to exert some pressure through through the house. And jim Jordan, uh, in november twenty two. But getting back to this point about about populism and what this whole counter, this information, the censorship whole society network does, is they did a clever reframing.

If you, this is really cute if you run a bully and search on google right now, and you look at what places like the atlantic council in brookings and the national demand for democracy, we're all saying in the months after trumps election in twenty sixteen, they were making the argument that maybe democracy was a mistake because that leads to outcomes like before they double down on IT, there was a brief window where they said, you know what, actually democracy leads the outcomes like Donald trump and brags IT. And at the time, nato know its biggest fear was free speech on the internet in in early twenty seventeen, nato periodical for saying the biggest star tornado is not a hostile foreign attack from russia. They would come to eat these words five years later.

They would argue, they argue, fares over the biggest tanada is free speech on the internet because it's allowing the rise of marine pen in france. It's allowing of matteo sylvania. Italy is allowing the rest of the box part in spain after in germany.

So we would have freg ix IT IT legs IT bag IT. The entire e would come on done, which meant naos commercial ARM comes on done, which means nato comes on done, which means there's no enforcement ARM for the I M. F in the world bank so IT would be like the ending scene from fight club where the credit card companies all all crash down just because you're allowed to speak your mind on the internet. This is so sick. If you've got .

good taste and hat sweets and t shirts and a good sense of humor, you probably know of old road. They're everywhere. We're happy to partner with them to launch, you know, airline jack out our store, tucker carson dot com, highly recommend.

For over fifty years, billingtons legacy has been great deals on coats for all weather conditions. So before you caught unprepared for the winter, weather had to burlington for name. Brands, quality items and surprising fits for every family member socked up on coats, sweaters and accessories before the cultists.

So you can finally stop avoiding the elements and start living comfortably. Warm up at your news. Springton location, less than one mile away. Willington deals brands, wow.

The twenty twenty four f one fifty lightning drug gets dirty and runs clean with an E P A estimated range of three hundred and twenty miles with the available extended range battery is the only electric vehicle that's an f one fifty visit for dog com slash f one fifty lightning to learn more excludes black to miles eps estimated driving range based on verge with the extern environment vehicles ho involved .

battery state 来 hey chicago， say hello to small business hell for map. That's right. We're here to make starting and running your business simpler, from helping you choose the right devices to setting them up hassle free.

We can help you build your business in no time, speak to a business expert and get the help you need and no cost whatsoever at apple. We're open for your small business. Go to apple accounts like small posts or visit an apple store to learn more.

So they they had this sort of crisis of what do we do about IT democracy is the problem and then they said, well, the promise, our entire diplomatic tooit, everything that the C I A does, everything the state department does, everything USA does, everything that the pentagon civil civil affairs does, is all under this rubrics of promoting democracy. This is how we top of foreign governments. We leave two predicts for topping a government.

One of them is is aggression, the other one is repression. So if they are aggressive against a foreign country, we yet to be the world's policeman, we yet to know top of them for the military activity. But if we can't nail them on that, we can always get them on repression.

We can say they were pressing around people. So we need to bring democracy there. And this is the this is the lying share of of you.

This is what we did in bello s. This is what we did, you know, in moscow from twenty ten to know to twenty. This is what we did in all these other countries.

And i'm not even arguing Normal, timely about whether that's right, wrong, but you have to understand that free speech on the internet is the collateral damage of this proxy war. But here's how they rescue democracy. They said, we can, okay? We need to step with democracy, even though we don't like its outcomes, because we take too long to turn the titanic.

All of our all, all of the clock dig black, ppo black ops, you know, plausibly deniable totaling of governments worldwide, all the name of democracy, all the gos, we und all the civil ety activists, all the media institutions, is all democrat. So we need to simply, instead of getting rid of this concept of champion democracy, we need to redefine what democracy is. We need to make IT not about the consensus of individuals, how people vote, but make IT about the consensus of institutions.

And we will simply define democratic institutions as anyone who supports the U. S. Foreign icy establishment and its transatlantic partners in the U.

K. So in the united states, that would mean redefining system of government from one in which a majority of three hundred and fifty million people believe something, to one in which a group of what would you be a hundred thousand people yeah about that .

yeah maybe .

one hundred thousand people. Probably a third who I know um in other words, it's like IT just takes they to took all the power from the american population and awarded to themselves yes.

And this clever retorts, slide of hand, allows unspeakable powers that americans have no idea about. I'll give you one example. So I said it's all about institutions now.

And you know, if you want to watch a funny clip, I posted this on my exacting t recently, the burger and institute, where reid hoffman is of a board member, and they were involved in this all transition integrity project, domestic color revolution blueprint from for stopping truck, from getting, from being installed as present, even if you want the electoral college and the contemplating using black lights, matter is street muscle. And the whole thing was run by A A senior pengas official with a CIA blue badge. And they have know that conference in in two and nineteen, the title of IT was how elections, how elections rode the democratic process.

Our elections are a threat to democracy, and because they, we're moving to this concept that IT that that the blobs control over the the political and commercial ecosystem of a country cannot be left to the people. If we define democracy to be about democratic institutions, then at the popular will of the people can still be categorized as a threat to democracy, which would still, that therefore still allow the funding of the billions of dollars worldwide that we have deploy this capital for this. And i'll give you great example this, the national science foundation is probably the the the main funding artery for most of the censorship ecosystem in the united states.

Now this comes a million plays. What I know this sounds crazy, but and the national science foundation is the civilian ARM of darpa. IT is has been those who .

warned from dc. We explain darpa is.

darpa is the pentagon's brain. Uh, darpa is the reason that we have the internet. Now darpa, the internet started as a military technology to be able to send and receive information digitally because the panic gon manages, not the largest employer in the united states.

Pentagon manages to the american empire when, after world, world two, we get this yearning empire stretching from here to let amErica to europe under the Marshall plan, an all way out to the Philippines in nation with this worldwide empire, we had to manage all these counterinsurgency threats, all the domestic populations that were opposed to us hegemony over their own, over their own lands, and to the pentagon, had to be extremely versed in all the regions, understand what was happening politically, what was happening culturally. And so the pentagon farmed out to U. S.

universities. This is a part of why so much of U. S. Universities, so much work is is funded by the defense department and and is funded by the national science foundation is varian civilian.

In fact, the central science foundation is the leading subsidizer of all. It's it's a leaving source of funding for all higher education funds. It's like people think we have a private a higher education market.

We don't. It's subsidized by the U. S. government. And that is a quid broke vote.

But through dod.

with their duty entering the central science foundation, which is the civilian, which is but the national science foundation, and even the story, the internet, again, IT was created by the U. S. Military, and IT was turned over to the national science foundation.

And then that's where the dual use comes in. When the military, you know, the military develop the cell phone, the military developed GPS, the military developed, uh, most of the technology at the R N D level that we now live. Under fact, the military developed of the internet animation software in order to help pentagon and CIA and state department back political groups be able to orchestrate regime change of the V P S, the tour network and an egypt to chat.

All these things were pending on projects before they became dully use, just like the internet became due use, was a military project. But then I then the civilian commercial, uh, architecture was built on top of IT. But the national science foundation has two major domestic censorship programs, and in the charter documents, establishing one of them in twenty twenty one, in february twenty twenty one, right went by the month after buying took office.

This is a, this is a forty million doll programme. In the charter document, IT says that the purposes has stopped misinformation about democratic institutions, and they, in one of the democratic institutions they define is the media. So understand this.

This is the pentagon civilian ARM funding forty million dollars worth of censorship, explicit, exclusively censorship institutions to stop americans from delegitimizing the media, to stop americans from undermining trust in media. If north korea did this, we would pass sanctions on them. If iran did this, we would pass actions on them.

This is because establishment media, and again, politically aligned media with the blob, has to be propped up as a buffer to drowned out the voices of populous. So the strategy here is too full, turning up the knobs of the blobbs propaganda channels and turning down the knobs of anyone who opposes that. Because you can win two ways.

You can win for three ways. You win in a fair fight, or you can win by super saturating your own media voice, or you can buy defauts because the opposition political party, the opposition political movement, is not allowed. This is why the U. S. State department, after twenty sixteen, established in like a hundred and forty countries.

Now, these censorship programs in the name of countering disinformation, the name of media literate, in the name of digital ilian ts, they have all these branding terms for because, uh, they they perceive this elder oro gold mine of of a new method for total political control over region, which is winning by default, by winning by censorship. A lot of times people don't believe state department propagate. They don't believe C.

I. propaganda. And so no matter how much money you pump in to the region, no matter five billion dollars Victory, newland bragged about being pumped into ukraine and civil society ahead of the madam IT still did not penetre astern ukraine was broke away in the dombasle still did not penetrate crimea who are, you know, voted shortly after to to join the russian federation in in a democratic vote.

So they from their perspective, funding propagate was not enough. We need to kill the ability to surface all alternative ideas because then they can even make account argument, even if they don't believe the prop again, there's simply no other choice in the room. You don't get access to the other ideas.

You don't get access to the other data points or news events that might undermine public trust in the state departments prefer narrative. This is what where mal information came from. Miss this amount information.

You may have heard that phrase. Misinformation is something that he is false, but you, he was in a mistake. This information is is wrong, but you did on purpose. My information is is right, but is still undermines public faith and confidence in something that's more important. This is why, for example, you had the censorship of coffee in the name of banning .

people from telling the truth. Yes, so how are you not like just football on certain team at that point? Your back, you're not allowing your own citizens to tell the truth. You're forcing lies at the point of a gun.

This is literally what the federal government's partners pressured, use an an exploited government pressure and threatened them with crisis pr. If they are, if they allowed true statements about covent nineteen to be articulated, if they this came out in the twitter files, for example, and were you identities like the parity project who were were telling you roth and the ji goi, the of the the former twitter one point out sensor ship team that you need to sensor self reported in vaccine adverse events because even if these things are true, they still undermine public faith and confidence in the effective y of vaccines.

They might increase vaccine hesitancy once people realize I can hurt them like they don't. Anna.

take IT, right? And part of the issue is the initial solution to this was, but the problem is in and trying to get legitimacy for censorship, because fact checkers identify something is wrong. But the promise, fact checkers are slow, fast checkers have limited influence on certain platforms, and so you can't hire enough fact checkers.

And also a lot times of t checkers can prove some things wrong. You're citing cdc data. You know you you're citing out a widely reported mainstream media event, but you can still get IT banned under the category of my information because IT still undermines public faith and trust in a critical narrative.

So it's sort of this censorship mercenary ecosystem created to protect nobilities. But nobile zed at home. And also no and also mobilized abroad.

So this is why I come back to the U. S. A department. And maybe this is a good time to introduce, you know, the the telegram. No issue here, which is that you had a strange situation where the government of france arrested povl and IT took everyone by surprise. And this is a major, major act, which has major implications for us platforms. The fact is is if povl is liable for every act of speech, criminally liable every act of speech on his platform, there is no reason that the head of rumble, the head of eggs, the head youtube, that everybody can be hold in for twenty years. The moment they step foot in paris .

is when they got all die in prison for letting people criticize their governments like right?

IT is a major diplomatic event. IT impacts U. S.

National champions. IT impacts U. S. Citizens, the U. S. Embassy in france.

Its job, the only reason is there is to protect U. S. National interest, U.

S. Citizens and U. S. Corporations from hostile foreign laws in france, hostile foreign actions by france.

And given how critical telegram is to the U. S. Military, to the U. S. On statecraft grounds, to the U. S.

On intelligence grounds, as we speak in dozens of countries, telegram is the main artery of the C. I, A. For for cultivating political resistance movement. And so the impact on the united states is absolutely massive of of doing this. Again, as as we discussed, the united states funded ukraine with about almost three hundred billion dollars in ukraine's military.

Intelligence chiefs say that they need to get control over telegrams back end to know whether or not the russians are in control of IT, and to get control essentially over its from and content moderation policies to ban russian propaganda channels. Remind you this comes just two weeks after the FBI raided the homes of Scott ridder and other journalists simply for appearing on russia today. He had his hard drive seas, his phone, his phone, seize other people, had their, the paintings in their own, in their own houses, seized by the FBI, not arrested, by the way, no charges against them, simply for appearing on a russian propaganda channel, a russian state T.

V. channel. So these are american citizens living in amErica who simply appeared on a channel from russia that had their homes raided, their electronics seized, and even though their paintings in their own home seized, if if they thought a russian painter may painted the picture here in the next stage.

two years ago, legal. Well.

technically they're not facing charges, but the idea was as because they have over ties to a russian propaganda. T they may have covert ties. And so the so the FBI now basically, you know, has them in the spider web.

But understand, this is what that makes me want to go on R T. Every single day of the year just to make the point, not because I for any other reason. Then to make the point, i'm an american citizen. I can have any political opinion I want and I can speak to anyone I want. But does anyone, any other media outlet, see this as kind of the end of amErica when people are raided by the FBI for having particle opinions?

Let's funny you say that because I this is really what started my own journey, which was that i'm not a foreign policies at IT. I if if the gun we're taken off of my head and an apology and repetition made for for the the destruction of the freen open internet, I might consider whether not IT is in U. S.

Interest to fund the war. Ukraine to, you know, to pursue the easy asia, to do these things? I don't know, I don't know. I see the arguments on both sides of IT. But the problem is the fact that they have destroyed so many lives, the fact that so much pursuing, pursuing this in my own free speech rights is cost me so much. But I have the same response to youtube, which is that, well, because you told me that I can't talk about this, I will not stop talking about this .

until they broke into my private tax account. The nsa did keep me from talking in putting and then I just said I don't care what IT takes. I'm i'm going to moscow to see putin should be two years but they really harden my resolve beyond like any point of reason like I was going period.

And I think that's the healthy response. You can. I'm an american citizen.

I was born here. You can not. You are not allowed. It's illegal for you to trample my god given speech rights. So how do I to cutch your cell phone bill in half every single months is probably pretty high.

You tracked recently horizon A T and t and t mobile want you to believe that you have to have something called unlimited data. And maybe you're in the small percent that you need unlimited data, whatever that is. But for most people, you do not need unlimited data, and you certainly shouldn't be forced to pay for IT.

That's where pure talk comes in. Pure talk only charges you for the data that you want. How about that? If you walked into an ice cream parlor and they said, you can only buy eleven coins, and you said, I just want one, you probably won't go back with you.

No, you go to the place that told you what you want to talk, text. And five gigs of data on pure talk is twenty five bucks a month. How much is five gigs where you can browse the internet for one hundred and thirty five hours? You can dream a thousand song, you can watch ten hours of video? So it's a lot actually.

So stop overpaying for data you never use and switch to pure talk in america's most dependable 5g net， twenty five box a month. Your talk is proudly veteran. LED supports american jobs with our whole customer service team right here in the united states.

Everyone speaks english. The americans, no offshoring. The average family saves almost a grander a thousand dollars year, no contract, no cancellation fees, a thirty day money back guarantee.

Pure talk makes switching very, very easy. Just go to peer talk doc com slash tucker and you will save an additional fifty percent off your first month. That's pure talk. One word dut com slash talk her to switch your cell. One service to the company can be proud to do business with only buy what you need.

This is the sound of your ride home with dad after he caught you waiting.

Awkward isn't IT most papes contains seriously addictive levels of nicotine and disappointment know the real cost of vagues brought to by the fda.

Ray mental here for, I guess, my hundreds mid commercial. No, no, no, no.

no, no. Honestly, when I started this, I had only to do like four of these. It's unlimited to premium wireless for fifteen dollars among how are there still people paying two or three times that much? So I shouldn't be victim blaming here.

Give me a try. And mid mobile dot com slash safe whenever you're ready. Forty five dollars up from payment equivalent to fifteen dollars per month.

New customers on first three month plan only taxes in these extra speeds lower about .

forty gives details. Well, this is this is the actual crux of our of our counter insurgency paradox, which is that now we have two things that we do for political control in the region here. One of them is counterterrorist.

If we know the military sets in on a country, if we say there's terrorist there, but if we, if there's no counter terrorism, still a darrant ico counterinsurgency, which is managing the rise of opposition political parties in the country, in the end, using you potentially sometimes connected or you hard power or drone striking people make violence, yes. And you know, the problem of counter insurgency, doctor is a critical component of the country, does not believe the government, the U. S.

Installed government, is legitimate. So they are well organizing a political movement to rise to power. Instead, we call that a political insurgency.

And the issue is, is to we want to get them, we want to get them stabilized. We want to yeah have them, make them have nothing and be happy. Because when people have grievances, know this is what gives rise to this whole insurgent problem.

But the problem is in counter insurgency is, in order to get legitimacy in the government, you need to take out the insurgents. But every time you take out an insurgents, you create ten new ones because of the bystandard ds, who didn't have a dog in the fight, who maybe, but not believed what the U. S.

Government propaganda was saying, just saw their cousin get taken out of the wedding inside, you know? So so this is the problem. This, but this is also where the whole of the highly framework comes from.

The old society framework comes from coining, comes from counter intelligence. We have adopting with encounter insurgency called whole of government, whole society, which is, which means every agency within the U. S. Government, and then every institution in society, and coming back to this watchword institution, because this is the watch word of speak, this is we propping up our institutions and sense ing anyone who opposes the consensus of institutions.

But, but this whole society framework is how you stop the counter insurgency paradox, which is that you take one, one out, ten, ten new, you know, you create ten new ones, if if the pressure is coming, not just from the U. S. Military, is coming from how you get a job in the country. So we on board the private sector companies, the work know either through formal partnerships with the state department or pentagon, or it'll be funded or will be informal or be or be back channel through something like know the center for international private enterprise, which is the chAmber commercial of the national democratic cracking.

And so we get the private sector companies, we get the we get the the universities, the ngos, the uh the activists, we get all the cultural figures h involved in the counterinsurgency effort, and we get the media involved in this is where the censorship architecture was this this is that what they agreed on. They literally borrow ed IT from the military doctrine for, you know, to solve this, exactly this physiological response that you're articulating right now. But getting back to this, in the this issue around the state department in telegram IT is IT IT is my intention that there's no way the french government would have done something so absolutely size mic in terms of its implications for the U.

S. Military for us. Intelligence in the U. S, A, U.

S. State department, without walking next door down the show. A and and telling the U.

S. Embassy in france that they were going to do this. They had an ongoing investigation, criminal investigation into power before this event took place.

Maconi even tweet that that is a bar and ongoing investigation. IT is stock common practice for the U. S.

Embassy is, as we discussed, in the checked public. And poland is IT a stock common practice for the U. S.

Embassy in, in, in the region to to coordinate to be no certified to be essentially a stakeholder in that country's conversations about whether or not, uh you know prosecutions in the name of anti corruption in the name of of anything will be done because the state department effectively has a soft beto power I mean, you can remember getting back to prosecutions and control of the prosecutors. This is a major scandal with job. An joe bian personally threatened the government of ukraine.

He said this, a council and foregone relations of committee. Your meeting, the folks recall the famous tape, a billion dollars you want either you get rid of your prosecutor or you lose a billion dollars in, you know critical, uh, U. S.

Aid to the region. And you know, by gi, you, they they fire the prosecutor. Control over the prosecutors is control over the politics. So the U. S.

Embassy in the region is constantly back channeling with the prosecutors the idea that this event, which is exactly what the state partment, has been soft calling for four months now, since you at least months, I I should note, if not arguably a few years, that this macula win fall because they don't have leverage against power. Otherwise he's living in the U. A.

And they don't have the attack surface on telegram that they had on what's up. They had this problem with WhatsApp a few years ago because what's happened is the other be a major and and crypt chat. P, there's only two games in town in the encysted chat space.

What's happened? telegram. And I watch this happen with the brazil story, the U. S. State department, again, capacity built by essentially driving through tens of billions of dollars of flooded foreign sites to all the censorship advocates in brazil.

This plan to stop the use of what's happened telegram by both in our supporters in brazil and in mode supporters in india. Places like the atlantic council, which are seven C. I.

A. Directors on its board, gets annual funding every single year from the U. S, A, department, all four branches, the U.

S. Military as well. C, I, A cut outs, like the national democrat democracy. They held the conference in in the summer of of twenty nineteen about the need to stop the use of what's happened telegram in countries around the world.

especially brazilian in india.

because we can spy on them most effectively. Because because the state department had already censored social, already got ten social media censored in those counties, both in our, both in our supporters were effective booted from twitter one point now, facebook and youtube. After twenty sixteen, there were said to be this international movement of ideas between pro prompt propose.

So they all after the, after the state department set of this apparent, they got them sensor from social media, they all ran to watch APP in telegram and so statement, or to created this enhydra chat problem, they can only talk and in an uncensored way, because the state department not already censored the other other main communication artery. And so both. So what's happen? telegram? We're put in the cross hairs of this USA program to kill in state.

U. S. A state prime program to to kill political support for ables and arrow and what's at methley within two and a half weeks because what type is very vulnerable. IT is owned by facebook, and facebook is a major, major service, has a is a major surface attack area for what's up. If you recall, jim, john sepi a these emails from facebook a few months ago of the facebook files.

And in the facebook files, IT came out that nick leg, the head of public policy, the head of the censorship terms of service at facebook, did not want to CoOperate with a bite. Administration, demands the sensor covered, but urge the team to do so anyway, because we have bigger fish to fry with a bine administration. So we need to think creatively about ways to be receptive to the censorship demands, because facebook is totally dependent on the U.

S. A department, the the, the intelligence services, and to sum extent, the long range threat of the pentagon to protect facebook data monos, protect its advertising revenue, to protect you from laws like the E. U. Digital market act and digital ices act, the, which is so, and this has come out as well.

And I was at the state department when I was called by nine google obvious, you know, who told me that the the the the number one threat to google business model over the next five years is the eu. Digit markets act. Digital services.

They need the protection of big daddy state department for favors for their profits. And so they play ball with the state department censorship demands in order to preserve that. But they are under the barrel habit. And people like mark socket berg right now are feeling like there, there, there, which end because they gave the state department and they gave the by administration everything they asked for in terms of censorship demands, and they're still being bullied by them.

So just yesterday, mark socker berg wrote this letter to chairman jim Jordan, where he came out in the stronger statement yet that you know that the by administration forced facebook effectively to do the censorship, that they they pressure them strongly in that in that the only reason they did the censorship actions, whether that was the joke, the hunter biden laptop, or whether that was the uh the copied censorship centering code origins, censoring, you know, all issues around know the COVID regime was because of pressure from the by administration and not only that, he said that he regret doing IT and would end now has a structures in place to stop facebook from relenting from such government pressure in the first place. And while this is great to hear zuker g say, IT would have been a lot more useful four months ago when there was a supreme court case under deliberation where the supreme court effectively argue that there there was an insufficient cause of relationship between government pressure and platform censorship action. So having a having a direct letter from mark zuck, burg unequipped, saying that that there was big as the head of of facebook would have been very useful to establish a supreme court present, believing that aside in the sort of too little, too late nature of that, this is something that had been parked late for for a while.

Facebook mark zug said that he regretted the censorship actions five months ago on on je rogue. So no surprise that you know, the zig express that in writing, but the fact that he would do to the republican chairman of the house weaponization committee and the fact that he said he's no longer supporting democrats in this election cycle, a signals to me that he fears the blob now. And IT feels like the Harris administration continue of the by administrations pressure polis, that there's no amount of flesh that he can give up as a pound to create their blood lesson and that he's turning, if not towards trump, then towards something that's against that and trying to provide whatever moral support to that without making a direct contribution to the to the other side, sort of maintaining the sort of of neutrality on financial and and messaging grounds.

He's not doing what evan is doing by voicing explicit support. Is not providing financial support, but he is he is very strongly motioning there because I think he thinks that the neutrality of a of a truck administration because trump s is neutral, trump s is completely neutral. But Frankly, to the point where he he should not have been, I mean, you had american platforms who were centering the american people who had voted for that government at end in a blasting away our first moment in doing so.

You know, the fact is, is all of the government, how can you protect government? How can the government protect platforms that are censoring the speech of americans? This would be like the state department supporting eggs on mobile and overthrowing governments to get oil and gas for exon mobile, while exon mobile was cutting half of americans off at the pipe, you know, at at the pump, at the gas station, if they voted for, you know, ice and hour.

And this is, this is its such an abuse. It's honestly the end of this sort of idea that this favors or favors of relationship between big government and big, big corporations has a trickle LED down effect to help the welfare of the american people. That has always been the justification for the national champion policy at state department, that the big, big government, when the pentagon and state department, C.

I, A and U. S. A. And the whole swarm of soft power institutions do favors for exon mobile or microsoft or walmart or pepsi than that means cheaper retail Price rust.

We have the export markets because we control that government. We have the natural resources. So we have cheap gas, middle ass living. But this has completely inverted that because it's big government teaming up a big CoOperation specifically to deprive americans of access to those put hat forms. But again, it's to protect the institutions against the individuals. It's to protect this, this, this conStellation of closer foreign policy institutions and in their international agenda, installed at a regional level on every plot of dirt on earth, from being opposed by people who might vote against them organically in a free, open information market.

What happens to pulled off.

it's unclear what kind of pressure may be mounted to set him free. Um there have been suggestions that potentially the U A E may take some steps. Unconfirmed the one player in the room who could exert enough pressure to set power free is unfortunately potentially one of the players who may be implicated in his arrest in the first place. And again, this comes back to the U. S.

Embassy in france, and which is why I believe that questions need to be asked by the house forer affairs committee to ambassador his power where the previous communications, previous emails, previous meetings, previous dialogue with french intelligence, french long enforcement, uh, or or members of the french government and when I say where the in meetings or communications or dialogue, I don't just mean directly by the U. S. Embassy, I also mean through the U.

S. Embassy bag channels, which is that many times this is done directly by the U. S. Embassy, but many times it's done by a back channel, which is that instead of the U. S.

Embassy talking with french law enforcement directly, a back channel, someone from, uh, a civil society institution funded by the state department like an in atlantic town council type organization or know A A former member of the state department has these conversations, does this lobbying, does this coordination and then reports the state department for new updates on the conversations about the the anti corruption uh prosecution and the state department provides guidance to the back channel and the back channel continues the negotiations of pressure and so IT, the sweep has to be total here because the implications of the U. S. Embassy, either coordinating or at the very least approving this are our seismic, because, again, of telegrams, critical military intelligence role encountering russia and stay craft role in everything that the state warn does.

Because, again, if russia does have a back end access to telegram, whether they cracked IT through their cyber hackers, or whether power head some secret agreement, that means every rental rate revolution that the C I. A does using telegram all over the world is also being secretly monitored by the russians. And maybe that's why they IT was unsuccessful bellers.

Maybe that's why I was unsuccessful with election in in russia. And they do make you know points about the fact that in russian military uses IT freely, over half of russia uses IT. And they point to questions around around the funding in order to make that argument.

So you do have these U. S. Interest, but you also have french interest.

I not. Do they have evidence? I mean, the U. S.

Funded decrease from signal IT doesn't mean right in one of people you signal right? Do they have evidence of this? I mean, public left russia in two thousand fourteen in his account. And I think this is true.

He felt like he had ve only his russian right but the put administration was trying to control telegram and he famously gave the finger to put on camera and left in took citied ship another country. So like do they think as someone who's been accused of being a russian asset a million times, what, I don't speak russian and course, i'm not even interested in russia. I'm sensitive to that, to that slider. And I just wanna like, do they have actual evidence, well put, as a back door to telegram that sounds like all lie to me?

But will they argue there will be no other reason for the russian military to use IT, you know, in such an unfeared fashion for for official russian military documents to, you know, to advocate the use of telegram?

There would be another reason which is IT secure.

right? They will. If you read CIA media on this. Again, being appointing to what radio free europe wrote two weeks after your interview with possible IT was that things may have well telling radio free .

europe and is disgusting. Let me to say, have grown up around IT. I'm just shocked by what it's become as disgusting and they should be ashamed themselves.

Well rated for eype was lauding uh in a telegram from twenty four thousand and twenty twenty. What they argue is that something may have changed beginning in twenty twenty one with a new round of funding, I believe, a debt round, a large dollar figure debt round that was raised. And they argue that there have been russian investors in that, and so there may have been some payoff.

And so because of that, russia only stockers for two years. They were pursuing banning telegram from a from russia, but then they they stop IT at the time that was considered a major free speech Victory by the united states and by the state department. They apple lauded the ng pressure on russia and the threat substances tions on russia or if they went ahead and band telegraph but the fact that they relented and then ubiquitously used telegram actually telegram usage in russia massively surged after the band. Ah there's only about ten percent of russians who used to before the band and now it's over thirty percent. And so they argue between the funding, between the fact that they are losing in all these places where they use telegram now that russia maybe you maybe came to IT, and the fact that there was that the ban, that the attempted ban was dropped in a massive certain usage afterwards can only mean that russia, A M B began to be pro telegram because of a secret deal began.

In other words, ukraine is losing a land war against a country with a hundred million more people, because povl darragh h has some secret arrangement with putin. Mean, this is the kind of fantastical child's thinking that makes empires fall, actually mean the total inability to deal with reality, to assess your own shortcomings, to be honest about anything as IT pertains to yourself, to be honest about yourself and how much you suck.

Those are fatal weaknesses in people and in countries. And I agree with to see U. S. Government fall into that kind of self indulge fancy.

right? But but think about the amazing windfall that just be felt, the CIA. They've had no leverage against possible this entire time. And yet the entire russian military architecture is built on telegram.

All high level russian million military and political officials, the internal workings of of russian stay craft and deliberations all happen on telegram. And there has, there has been no window into that because of potholes. Belief in free speech.

So now, if povl cracks under interrogation, if he cracks under pressure, suddenly all communications of all russian citizens and all russian military officials and all russian diplomats that we're taking place on telegram for the past five years are now in the hands of the C. I. A. So this is in.

in when I was just torture to death, I mean like when I just like just drop the pretense and just like to north korea now um with slightly Better infrastructure slightly um and like stop pretending because that's what this is. They're like torturing a man um and in the process stripping us of our god given speech rates and a rate to privacy that they always growing about, but only when IT pretax to abortion. I mean this is so immoral what we're participating in IT does anybody does like even occur to all the creeps on the internet, the atlantic count, i'll get a women. All people think this is great as IT occur to them that, like, there are no Better than north korea in this situation.

Well, I think from the ukrainy perspective, they say our people are dying, were being massacred by the russians. And so your free speech has to be a casualty of you know, of this war and so in .

religious freedom and the restaurant church and you know the freedom of like priest to celebrate the uterus, like they're in jail now. So it's like but a certain point.

like what do you think .

anyone in ukraine looks over to washington and says, you know, you promised us this was a good idea where the they've lost at least six hundred thousand in ukrainians. They've lost the right to their land. Their land cannot be bought by foreign portions. They just made that change and that will be and like all of that is because they follow the advice of washington. Do you think they think .

that what does not matter what the people of ukraine and now, no, they're not a lot of elections. You're they can go there are out of IT. There's no there's no elections and mind you, you know that you can look everyone listening right now can look at something called the red lines memo from from the ukrainy crisis media uh group, which is basic conglomerate of you know all these U S. Funded N G S. And civil society institutions in ukraine.

Uh the and they a so called the so called red lines me out to lensky when he took office and they threatened elenchi in that letter that if if he took any of the below actions on security policy, on energy policy, on media policy, on cultural policy, seven eight different buckets of of internal policies that new zaly might pursue that if he crossed any of the red line in terms of restoring use of the russian language on ukrainian TV or um you know interfering with the private zone of afghans and things like that, if he crossed those red, any of the red lines, the the policy issues articulated by this us, a conStellation, you know, this U S. Ng, which is an umbrella for all these other state department ags, that ukraine would face immediate political destabilization if if any of those policies were enacted, basically the same renter riots that were that we're deployed by the U. S.

A department in the central intelligence agency. And to some extent, the pentagon in the twenty fourteen medan protests would be redeployed against lin if he decided to chart an independent course for the ukrainian people that he would be run out of office the same way, you know, his predecessor yano, which was, uh, by the same forces, if he did something that was in the wild, the ukrainian people, but oppose the U. S. A department.

This is so grow. ask.

I just want to post now and ask you, anyone who's follow this conversation to this point finds IT as problem, as compelling as I do so for people who want and never do this. But in your cases, I want people to read what you ride. Where's the best place to follow you much more closely than just your appearances here on ex.

at my best. Cyber, on one word at mike ben, cyber. Um, i'm prolific. I I believe in this. I understand what is probably gonna happen to me at some point.

But I, again, I might, my dog in this fight is not changing U. S. Foreign policy to change U.

S. Foreign policy. Let others decide what to do in ukraine, what to do all over the world.

I did not. I could. I can understand both sides of the issue.

I can understand the sort of anti perier alist. These are human rights violations. You know, we should not be toppling democracy elected governments. I can also understand that it's a big bad world out there. And if we don't do IT somebody elsewhere and we need capacity in place to do that, it's a complicated issue.

The problem is, is we don't have a democracy when when our entire political structure is about hearts and minds of the people, that's where democracy is. Hearts and minds of the people are determined by the information ecosystem, freedom speech. And so if you don't have the freedom speech to be able influence hearts and minds, and the hearts and minds to be able to give rise to to free fair election, well then whose and who you don't have a democracy, you have, you have a military hunter effectively.

And and to the point that you made before that the legitimate all falls out. And so all I care about is free speech on the internet. And so what sounds .

like what you care about is america. You care about the country that you live in.

Yes, right? And to that point, I I make another sort of note here, which is that I am not coming out making a facial allegation, that is that the united states was the driving force behind pavel's arrest. I believe that IT is highly unlikely that they were not coordinating or encouraging IT.

And I believe that at the very least, there was approval. And approval is a sort of light standard that's a little bit less damming because all IT means is that the U. S. Did not was notified but did not apply.

Counter pressure was sure bit. I mean, you could also say, and I would say, having seen in a million times in my long life, when foreign country party, an ally like friends, does anything we disagree with, we can issue a note of protest. State farm can say we we disapprove of that we support human rights, including the right to speech and the right to privacy is Better.

And we didn't do that right now. We can threat to come off aid. We can threaten to d to cut off contracts .

to french companies just to approve. I mean, it's Frances. And if we if the presidents get out, tony, in the the U. S. Ambassador differences and just said work against this.

that would be a lot. And everyone right now go to the twitter page of the U. S.

ambassador. S on x. There's no public statements about IT.

There's been no statement by the state department, no statement by the U. S. Embassy in france .

when an american citizen, calgon za, was killed by the ukrainian, died in prison for criticized in the new ukrainian government a government that we supporting control the name of democracy and freedom. The U. S. State partment said nothing, the government said nothing.

They approved, of course, but you can. They're behind this in so many cases that IT seems highly unlike you, especially give, given how amazing a windfall this is to the united states foreign policy establishment on this. But this sort of related points I want to make about france here, which is that france does have its own independent reasons for doing this, which is that france's whole financial empire is dependent on africa. They have france still has a sort of mi colonial empire. Fourteen countries in africa, you know, who basically you to use french currency .

in our goal code of our west africa?

yes. And france also derives the lion share of its own energy resources. And they have had a big problem in the past to the french.

the famous french nuclear program. Yes, nuclear energy program, which is, I think, the biggest in the world.

And five percent of Francis energy comes from nuclear.

and that comes from new chair that comes from french speaking african country.

the uranium. So three out of every four light popes in france are you are turned on by the uranium. You effectively in nigeria, a few other places, and the french lost controlled of next year to russia, just last year.

Yeah, there was a, there was a military coup, as there was in Molly in several other places where IT was a military coup, if not orchestrate back, stopped by the russian military in in these countries, one after another. You've had four, five french colonies effectively fall to russian military active in africa. And so we've lost control over the the access in in naja, for example, they had to close down their embassy.

They are all of their, all the french troops. They, which had the largest presence in africa, were all evicted. They, they lost all of the soft power influence over these countries. And in these countries the the africans are burning french flags and raising russian flags. In fact, many these african countries are now are cutting off diplomatic ties with ukraine because of how closer filiation with russia is, because of russian military competence and and activity in africa. France is losing the ability to keep the lights on.

Yes, so and IT should be noted. However, the russia doing this because under micro france, has been jumping up and down about the ukraine war, pretending to be a meaningful part of nature, which they are not, and just sort of pretending that they still have a meaningful empire. Everyone cares. Anyone cares at all what they think. And theyve noye russia, to the point where I think .

this is payback, right? But russian, the russian military is built on telegram. Everything they do point out now that is not necessarily public telegram channels, but the, but the private, the private version with the end end encryption in the anon on the annals fording the ability to aggregate everybody into russian private military contractor, into a, into a common telegram chat.

Only telegram has that capacity. No other. They can post this on facebook.

Uh, they're not going to use facebook on C. I, A intermediate WhatsApp. All they have is telegram for that. So if if french intelligence is able to get travel, to sing under questioning or interrogation, or threats to spending the rest of his life in prison, france may be able to, you finally have a chance to to retake the colonies that we're lost to russia.

Okay, let me just say though I would much rather be monitored by the russian military, by the israeli, by any foreign government, then I would buy my own government because I live here but all my government has no right as A I think a asty matter to monitor me um but also the implications is being monitor by foreign government as an american are not as big a deal as they are what i'm monitor by my government do you him saying.

no. Absolutely this is well, actually there's a great point along this which gets right to the france story in this intersection between U. S. And french interests, U. S. In french shared military intelligence and diplomatic and economic interest in in arresting power, and finally, getting the leverage they have craved so long to be able to both control telegrams, content, moderation, practice, to ban all russian propaganda channels which are infecting the minds of everyone from ukraine, deblois to, you know, to subside in africa, but also know the ability to get this back and access to for you to to read every russian text message effectively there. There's a great example this in terms of blow back on americans.

So we've talked about this, this group, the atlantic council, we know, which builds itself as as a naos think tank against a lot people don't even know seven C, I, A directors are still alive, let alone all cluster together on the board of directors of a of of an, an N G. Nado think tank. Uh, but IT gets annual funding from the pentagon, the state department and C, I, A.

Cut outs like like the national democracy as well as U. S. A. There are eleven different federal government agencies who all provide federal government funding every single year to what is effective, the civilian influence ARM of nata.

Now in march twenty eighteen, the island council published A, A, A, A set of White papers called democrat defense against this information in in the march twenty eighteen version of IT. The cover photo. Again, this is funded by the united states pentagon, united states states department, united states intelligence service, a conduits. The front page of this memo called democractic defense against this information, which called for this whole of society playbook about how how the government could organize civil society censorship from the civil society side, censorship from the private sector, censorship, uh, advocacy, immediate organizations the cover of the memo of the memo was a giant network map, a network narrative map of the of the french election, because at the time there are some weak leaks are published they called the mro leagues which were these sensitive, politically embarrassing no emails uh.

Involving mro when he was neck neck in the race against marine the pen two thousand eighteen in the front page of IT you had in read all these narrative network maps of a french citizens and russians but there were two big Green network nodes are that were highlighted at the the front of the memo. And one of them was a big network node saying wik leaks. The other one was a big network node saying jack phobic.

Only just you understand what's going on here. Weak leagues have published micro leagues. And Jacobean at the time was this large U. S. Based U. S.

Citizen social media influencer who is one of the first and most aggressive to popularized the distribution of these micro leagues on social media. And that was considered an attack on democracy by effectively the pentagon, the state department, the C. I, A, nato.

They were not targeting russians, they were not targeting french. They were targeting A U. S. Citizen for amplifying now publicly available documents that might undermine political support for nato's preferred political puppet in france by telling the truth, by publishing true documents. Like that's exactly.

there was no allegation. IT wasn't like the hundred by the laptop in the first week where this is in real. No one contested the fact.

These are real. These are real. We just want to allowed to see him because you can't know the truth, because you might make you harder to control.

Well, this is the issue, is this, this is A U. S. citizen.

This is A U. S. Funded institution, gets millions of dollars every year.

IT has seven C, I, A. Directors on its board. The army funds IT.

The navy funds at the air force funds IT. U. S, A, finds the state department.

And in the cross hairs of the cover page of the memo is A U. S. Citizen for doing what that wasn't even A U.

S. event. IT was an american citizen publishing about a election in a galaxy far, far away.

How much is that going to take if we colonize mars and there's an election on mars? Can the central intelligence agency organize the censorship of an american citizen because the preferred puppet for the you know elector race on mars, you know, is being undermined because of, uh, a social media post, uh, from someone living in rural montana. There's no end to this.

It's there isn't it's been ongoing, you know, much longer than I realized.

And I think that's part of the problem is that people who consider themselves non liberal or opponents of the democratic ty have certainly consider myself that were the slowest to figure out that the D O D, depending on the military um in the intelligent cy particularly C I A, also law enforcement F B I D H S that they were um threats to the country, into us and they reflexively supported them and that's all a forty nine year year old hanging from the church committee hearings in one thousand nine hundred and seventy five were was like all the like, oh shut up, you're not pay rioted but actually the left knew right away that what matters is the institutions that are armed. Guns matter. Guns matter more than anything.

And so you want to have the armed institutions on your side and use them to express your political opponent. And they did that, and I took republicans. They still figured out, you check in the box on funding D.

O D, like, you know, more than any military in the history, the world to lose war after war for eighty years, and they don't understand that they are sign their own death warn and the death warn of american democracy. It's like free infuriate must drive you crazy. As a former federal employee.

IT won. Mean, you nailed IT there. What they are doing to populism is what they used to do to communism. If you remember what actually you started, the church committee hearings will gave IT the political legitimacy to finally have to stay in congress was the fact that the C I A.

And the pentagon and the FBI were all interfering in domestic politics, and the democrats to stop the anti war F A big way, domestic political support for know if her anti vietnam a is what was killing the funding legitimacy for for the war in vietnam. And IT was killing the political Mandate. And so we have this doctor in the fourth theatres of war.

We need the four domains of war. This is this U. S. Army doctrine, which is there's the strategic, the logistical. So the strategic, the tactical, the logistical and the political four ways you can win or lose a war on the strategic side of the grand strategy of IT.

On the tactical side, you know who, who are you going to attack? How when the logistics is, how to get the supplies there, how to get the funding for IT? And the political is, do you have political support at home to be able to fund the logistics, to be able to to do these particular tactics? You know, if if IT the war is not popular home, you don't get the funding for all the logistics that you need.

You don't don't get approval for certain tactics that would be deemed human rights violations or word crimes. And so you can. The U.

S. Military establishment believes that we lost vietnam, am famous, got vietnam's syndrome, because we lost in the political domain. This is why the, the, the U.

S. A department and the C. I fund anti war movements domestically within countries that we go to war with.

We pump up the anti war voices in the country, the anti, the anti war parliamentary arians, who might be in control of that country's budget in order to undermine their own ability to capacity build the war. And this is what's happened here. You know, this was a George H.

W. Bush quote, you know, by god, we kicked vietnam syndrome when he brought CNN on the military airplanes to, uh to propaganda ize how grate the war was. And this is why the media has been so intensely on board in all pentagon Operations. Ince, they're still very .

unpopular. They're extremely unpopular. The the iraq war looking backward, whatever over the how we try to do in syria, whatever we did in libya um the twenty years in afghanistan, those are all seen as failures by a huge percentage, the american population, despite the relentless propaganda. So that should really matter if the majority the public is against something we shouldn't do IT because we we're supposed to be in charge of the government.

Well, this is when I come back to doctor, when you are a part of this apparatus. S you are, you are now taught that what democracy means is the institutions, the democratic institutions, the government institutions, the N G O institutions, the media institutions and and any private circle companies .

was a really deep and important that you said that about what a year ago you first said that I heard you said about a year ago, and IT change my thinking completely.

But this is also because i'm hearing you react to how evil at all is. Yes, no, no, no.

Actually no.

I'm glad you did, because I think this is a useful point for the american public to understand, which is that when you're in this thing, IT doesn't look like IT does from the outside, because the language of sensor speak, that is, is a very unique one in the same way that marxism in sort of rose to some level of cultural mainstream because of a decade incubation in universities, know developing this esoteric jargon of this sort of lego tower of abstractions and concepts that went the, when I was finally rolled out to the public, the public could have a sort of set of frameworks to rationalize and support IT.

There is a thick lexicon of sensor speak that totally takes the human element out of IT. So when you are a part of this censorship aprs, you don't really feel like you are censoring people. I'll give you an example. They don't refer to people who they sensor as citizens or people they they referred to them as cyber threat actors. Okay, so when you are when you are.

they kill them. They don't say they kill .

the liquid them right? Yes neutralize. Um when you uh we they not refer to your tweet or your facebook post or your youtube video, they call those incidents so so yeah so because your opinions .

are a crime.

right? When you capacity built with tens of millions of dollars, U S. Funded censorship mercenary firms, you are not funding censorship. You are building digital resilience. You are engaging in a media literacy cap.

he said. All girls running this because this is you're using the very feminine language here. It's it's .

quite egalitarian. I I would say it's it's a interesting blend in terms of the cast of characters. The one commonality is they are all vented.

They're all financially dependent on the resources of the of this of the pentagon, the state department, U. S. A. In in the related swarm army of ngos who then trickled that down.

As I get back to, for example, the national science foundation is whose funding all the universities, the pentagon is funding countless censorship personality from me. The U. S. A again has these entire programs with thousands of these no censorship promoting media organizations, censorship post flagging um you know this information experts and so you you entered this kind of clustered world with its own language.

And there's also a sort of moral justice action because these people have unbelievable amount of power of a kind of god like feeling over the political ebs and flows of every country on earth. And yet they don't necessarily make very much to reflect what they know, what they do and think about the power that the director of the central intelligence agency has, and yet makes less than twenty function, makes less than A A six year associate juniors in a mid level associate at a new york law firm. And yet this person determines, you know, the rise and fall of virtually ever.

He know every country on on earth at least, has significant influence over IT. So the money networks are very important because this has become a bonfield I call IT, I don't I call IT the censorship industry, because that's the most useful way to understand how what the glue that keeps everything together. IT is a censorship industrial complex, but IT is the industry that keeps the upper, every, all the cox in the wheel going.

The private sectors make bank because they do govern favor s is why microsoft are example, such a huge player in the in in the censorship appearances are a huge private sector partner in the whole society network under the under the private sector banner, because microsoft is is hugely dependent on foreign markets, hugely dependent on the U. S. A department to negotiate on their behalf, to be a stop foreign laws that might undermine their, you know, that might undermine their profitability.

They have almost ten percent of of their profits coming from china. So they join these national demand for democracy sensors of ecosystems in twenty eighteen, when all this was at the sort of adolescent stage of getting created, and when the real concrete of the of the bricks was getting laid down, while there still some murdered, that would be developed in two thousand and twenty twenty. Microsoft created this protecting democracy program, which became this major in house censorship incubator.

And then you participate in all the D. H. S. Censorship meetings. All of the C. I, A. Cut out censorship meetings through the national down for democracy. Because microsoft financial interests are dependent on the government, and they are putting a favor in the favor bank to the government by doing, and the government will in turn reward them by telling that foreign government who whose political prospects are now protected because all the opposition is censored, to do favorites for microsoft.

And this is what you, this is why they're such a huge stay holder APP atin of this in one of the four i've talked about the national democratic cracks many times here. They have four course that they call IT. You know, the N.

D, I, which the dnc branch of of the C. I, I cut out hunter biden on the chain. Adviser, need a jacket.

This was a part of IT. I just see you can understand the pete's ory of this. The international public .

linked tute is is the R.

N C branch fit MIT romney gyt five years. And the third one is the union branch called the solidarity center. So this is basically the CIA intermediary CIA back channeling with unions, because unions play a major role in the rent rights in bellers, for example.

And so very, this is how you get workers without a lot to lose, who a little bit of money goes a long way are. These are the people who are in control of how. The trains working, you can part of this playbook for destabilizing the country, as you shut down all the instruments the government could use, so shut down the railroads, you block the highways, h the hospital kitna workers all all walk out.

The teachers from the teachers unions all walk out, and so the C. I, A has to have the background to that. So let's salty center, among other links, is but the fourth one.

The fourth of the core force called the center for international private enterprise. And this is the U. S.

ChAmber of commerce, commercial interest in the region that the CIA is orchestrating a regime change Operation in or is putting influence on the existing government. And so this is a IT was a major event in the republican party when the U. S. ChAmber of commerce turned against trump.

The only pity that the republican party had against democrats for the past hundred years has been the fact that that the republic that while democrats had the media, hollywood, using in culture, unions, uh to some extent finance, republicans had the warning through the energy industry and the chAmber of commerce. Because of this chAmber of commerce, companies preferred republicanism for its free market enterprise, free enterprise and low low tax structure. The problem is trump, sort of you stepped on a on a rattle snake with this idea of making amErica first and american nationalism to the sense that they cut back on american intervention.

Alison american, you know, over constant democracy promotion abroad is the first present forty years not to, you know, declare a new war effectively. So you had all these chAmber of commerce companies whose the lind share of the revenues dependent on foreign markets, or whose supply chains or source in foreign countries, and they need a big bad C. I.

A. They need a big bad state department. They need a big bad U.

S. A. And a big bad pentagon, if necessary.

And so trump ism became A A sort of threat to the bottom line of the U. S. ChAmber of commerce.

And so the that, so I come back to this because the commercial interest here are sort of driving what's happening at the intelligence and military and diplomatic policy level, if that makes sense. For example, take you crane, right, ukraine. IT was not just in the overthrow of the government in twenty fourteen.

There, yes, IT was a state department Operation. Yes, IT was A U. S.

A funded C. I, A directed Operation as well with the british government. But who were the financial statements? Ders, why do they do IT?

Well, the ukrainean government has just rejected A U. S. Embassy, I M F trade deal insider with russia. They were, they were screaming about privatizing aff gas. And the at the time, the 1万是 college of corporations， chAmber of commerce companies, that oil and gas companies that all made massive investments in the ukrainian energy sphere, because the long range plane was to bankrupt gas from, and take the new trillion dollar market that gas prom has into europe, cut them off and have nato based energy companies take their market for them. So the plane was beautiful.

If you, if you kill gas prom first, if you have a national security project for doing IT because you kill gas, from there goes the russian military. So now in russia, threat in africa is neutralized. Uh, russia can't oppose the pentagon in syria in other places.

So is a lot of national security pentagon reasons to pursue that. But then you had the all these U. S. Companies ink all these deals between twenty eleven and twenty thirteen with the ukrainian energy sector.

Shavon spent IT signed a ten billion dollar deal with after gas, which the state owned ukrainian gas company is me was the largest private gas company was the fear to after gas shell from, uh from the united kingdom me I was royal that shell, but it's basically had garden one shell shell also signed imaging ten billion dollar deal with nothing gas the state on gas company haliburton dick chinese where he used to be uh C E O and and chairman of the board and also George seras had a large equity share in helibor ne hale bourne ows the oil and gas processing rights in in ukraine all of these companies were invested in resources that were sorely situated in the don bus in a crimea, the don bus in the mountains in crimea, offshore. And then what happened after? So we overthrow the government twenty fourteen because the the ukrainian government was not giving everything that the state department wanted.

We thought we arrested toral control that now all these people who had made these, all these U. S. Corporations would make these investments, make bank.

But then we don't expect this counter coup that happens the basically just a few months afterwards, when the dawn bus broke away and and crime have voted to join the russian federation, and the whole thing was purportedly batched up by the russian water. So you have tens of billions of dollars of by U. S. Whaling gas companies whose investments all go to zero.

Because now how is perma mine, you know, mine shell on the dawn bas? How does naf gas get the profits from, uh, from that mining? If russia controls the territory, how how are you going to know, do offshore, you know, drill rigging in crimea when crimea belongs to russia? So you have you have these commercial interests driving the state department policy in the region, when Victoria newland, in late two thousand thirteen gave that famous speech where SHE bragging about the five billion dollars that the U.

S. Government had pumped into ukraine and civil society, the very civil society that were going to overthrow the government just months last later, when he gave that speech, he was at A U. S.

Embassy event being sponsored by several and exxon. Yes, yes, go to my x feed. I'd got the the picture and H, D, 4k blown up for everyone to see。 So again, you have this relationship between the commercial.

So it's not just that like you wave a rogue state department, we have a revolving door between big government and big corporations. And the idea of putting american first, amErica first in a world where those corporations are primarily means that nationalism is a threat to multination corporate interest. And so multination corporate interests will sponsor the state department activity and use the battering RAM of the C. I, A, the state department, the pentagon and nato to achieve those corporate interests. So we've a much bigger problem here, which is why I call for a reform, because our whole financial ecosystem is actually bent on this.

And that's just the natural globalization. I mean, that was always gonna happen if you thought IT through from, I mean, why would you brags IT be seen as a threat? T U S.

interest. I mean, that's um okay. We could want for hours, but I want to end. And we could actually do hours on this specific topic. Want to end on the question of you on I think is you know one of the most significant figures and modern story. Obviously he is but very much a current player.

A lot depends on what he's doing now on the question of speech with ex and um and of course is he's has an incredibly complex life where he's tighten all kinds of different things with all kinds of different companies that relying government contracts but holding line in in demonstrated ways. Everyone I know who watched the you know of arrest this weekend first thought, oh, man, you know who's next? Do you think that the blob you so vividly describe um can tolerate elon musk allowing the world's population to say what he thinks through the election and beyond? And what implications does this arrest have for him?

Well, it's a complicated issue because in one is is unique and I wrote about this when he announced the acquisition before we've been closed. I I wrote article where I I described how iron is actually quite unique this relative to other um billionaire wners of social media companies who followed the pressure and I cited a few reasons. One is again the the strategy on this apart from prosecutions, is whole of society contraction of the economics.

So what you do is to get facebook to do what you want. You, you, you offer cares, and you threaten sticks. So if you do what we want, you'll get you bribed.

You'll get rewarded. If you don't do what we want will back back you. And so they festive ously organized the whole society. So that pressure is applied from the private sector pressures. So advertiser advertiser boycott USA has an has a formal disinformation program focused on getting advertisers to cut off revenue to prepare misinformation sites and prevails of misinformation. And I have seen that they have this formally published.

In fact, my organization, foundation for freedom mind, and published the formal disinformation primer in february twenty twenty one, one month after biting took office, where in a ninety seven page USA disinformation program memo thirty one time, they mention the word advertisers as being necessary to kill the revenue to any social media site, or any social media count, or any independent web page that that spreads misinformation. So U. S.

A is contorting the economics of the entire news industry in order to to get platforms to sensor less. They go economically bankrupt. And remember, the us.

Is the major threat to inland still to this day? But particularly, uh, these advertiser boycotts, which crushed the ability, is why they had to turn to subscriptions and they had to make this a dollar month, twelve dollar a month type thing because of all the ad boy cots. And again, USA is a formal program to coordinate that in the whole society fashion, there are game back to in land's uniqueness.

So for a couple things, as a triple digital billionaire, he may be more insulated from these kinds of whole society and circular economic pressure tactics that someone like mark zuker, G. R jack dorsey had tolerant ed, for they were only double dig billion's zuker berg. Where is as a triple digit illiac, that matching may be robust enough to resist that game? Back to this mark zuker berg letter in twenty nineteen, mark zuker berg was making public speeches saying that he thought censorship had gone too far.

Gn, facebook, that was twenty nineteen, I remember. But then he got hit with a very interest resting boycott that was called hashtag change the terms. And IT basically was economically covering facebook to change the terms of its terms of service, effectively, to ban trump supporters and bara's its supporters and anyone in europe who is supporting a righting populist party there.

And facebook lost sixty billion first market cap in forty eight hours under this boy cut. And so facebook folded like a one. Cherry gave them everything they asked for because sixty billion was enough to break zocor back. At the same time.

those who who paid for change the terms.

Oh, that's how many hours you have. It's about sixty seconds .

just bottom mined for us.

I mean, nominally IT was the ad and color of change under this kind of hate speech idea. But IT was joined by dozens of U. S.

A funded, U. S. A department funded O. S.

Civil society institutions who were all creating the base of that are nominally, you had these know the color of change, and it's about hate speech on social media, but the the buffering substructure for IT. Where are these U. S. Government intermediaries? And you have this issue where you what they said was hate speech, but they, as part of the chance, a chance, the terms campaign, anyone who criticized open borders was consider to be doing hate speech against his spanning s because of, you know, the disproportional impact on that.

Anybody in, you know, germany or france, or anyone who are opposed, anyone who is a part of this pro rightwing, populist, nato sceptical faction against whole frag IT brags IT exit IT legs IT domino, know this, that that all started because the migrant crisis after we assassinated the office, and there was a giant no influx of of migrants into european countries. And this gave rise to a righting populist political opposition force. And they were the ones who are chAllenging all the nato preferred political candidates in those regions.

And so this was a, this was a proxy attack on all the political enemies of the blob. But in an is unique because the U. S. A department needs elon, or at least they need elan's properties. You have a powl problem here, which is that all they don't they don't care about povl, they care about telegram.

But to but to break into telegram, to get access to the back end, to be out of sensor, you know that sort of front facing and right, you need you need control of the personnel. Because the policies of the platforms are perfect personal policy with iran. I don't think they want to cake him out what they want to, corporate regime change, or him to play ball.

And I think they allowed the acquisition because they assumed that he would play ball, as everybody else who opposed them in the past did. Jack dorsey came out and said that he was a business decision. You know why they sensor trump in and that he was scream amish about IT. But now they were under the gun of the financial pressure. There was the reason .

mark sucker did all the sense, see, I can say with some authority, I think really hated sensor trump. He was trump because I think really was opposed to sensor offical level.

right? So I think they thought all in lands talk in a big game now, but they all did, and everyone folded. It'll be just like the restaurant because he has a wide surface of attack, uh, as well.

E one has tesla. Uh, e one has space. X at these are critical, critical companies for U. S. statecraft. So space, the U. S. Pentagon intelligence services state department is hugely dependent on spaces for all lowered satellite for all telecles unica. I was at the state to part .

rescuing stranded astronauts .

like actually I. Yes, no, yes. And tesla is hugely important for a to have A U. S.

National champion in the Green energy revolution, the renewable battery technology is a huge part of the the of the U S, of U. S. leadership. Uh, in the climate change transition. One of the reasons that they view him as a huge hero up until, you know, he became A A free speech advocate.

And so I know the guy can say any Better than one of the writing from the national demand for democracy, the the the very C I cut out that we've talked about, you know, dozens of times now in this, in this dialogue, which is that one of the riders in the national democratic mocs acy rote, just a few months ago, that elon mosque is a greater national security threat to the nine states, then rush this a few months or not, is a post outbreak of the word, this is in twenty twenty four. And that a, that even one is a greater threat to the united states in U. S.

National security in russia because his proximal impact on U. S. Politics and the, and allowing, you know, opposition political movements to rise is will cost changes in U.

S. Government that are more likely to make us lose the war on russia than russia itself. It's the same, nato said, twenty seventeen.

He said they weren't a pickle because the U. S. Government is so dependent on elan's properties. And so basically called for a kind of death by a thousand paper cuts type strategy. And this this is what we're seeing .

and wrote this in public.

Yes, you can look IT up. This is, you know this is nothing you can I believe they are. The um auth of IT was a man named the dean Jackson as current or former national demand for democracy fellow.

Is a part of this this whole censorship industry AAAAA that i've talked about that that is done through the whole society network. And I can actually post the article on my ex account that folks are interested uh right after this. But yes, they arguing that they get, but the national demand for democracy is gets its funding by the U. S. government. IT is not IT is accountable .

to congress. But I imagine a more anti american belief then, american citizens shouldn't be allowed to talk. American citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote, or their vote shouldn't be allowed to count. The american citizen shouldn't allowed to choose their own leaders. I mean, imagine thinking something like that in imagining that you're in american, right?

But understand that as soon as you accept the frame that democracy is about the institutions.

I know, but wake the fuck up these, I mean, come on, I mean, like I get IT, I understand I used to drink too much and very familiar with, you know, ways that we justify and justify our behavior to ourselves.

But on some level, like you understand in the everything can wait in the name of democracy and preventing my fellow americans from giving their opinions out loud, or I don't think their vote should count, like is there no they have no souls, obviously. right? I started get abcde just so crazy. I the reason that .

I keep coming back to that is because i'm trying to ARM everybody watching this in a language .

necessary to fy IT. Well, in spinning me into a frenzy you are always do um i'm sorry, so good. Me just asked one last question OK do do once again do you think that x will stay open through the election.

stay open in the U. S. A. But the state department is coercing foreign governments to shut down x Operations around the world until x sensors, everyone, the state department, want censored.

Take the e digital service act, which i've been screaming for years. now. A has is the number one existence, al threat to iran into x this is a, this is a law. This is a no. This new just came into effect in the E.

U, uh, after years of pressure from nato for the eu to to advance this, which goes beyond the typical european hate speech laws and creates a new sort of category for this information, which requires all social media platforms to do this information compliance and the U. S. Censorship industry.

They did, they did a conference. There was a there was a big hundred and fifty page, uh, sort of consensus memo that hundreds of these people all sort of cosign and then they did. A launch event where they all talked about our live stream afterwards.

And in that live stream, they said that they would be in a full blown panic because of elon mosques and losing, losing x and elon's policies, getting ready, all the censorship provisions they had, because twenty twenty four has more elections than any year in world history. I think it's something like sixty five elections are eating all happening all over the world. So the state department control is, you know, is at risk.

And sixty five and eighty five different countries in the counter, year twenty twenty four. And they said that we would be in full blown panic. But we can panic responsibly because we have basically a trick up our sleeve.

And these these are us. Sensory professionals, many of them paid by the U. S.

Government through grants and what they are state immigrants and and what they said is, yeah, the trick up our sleeve is that we have the E. U. digwell.

Services act and that will force elon to rehire all the fired sensors and IT will force him to basically restart the censorship apparatus unless he, he's going to lose x. Is participation all the E, U, because that imposes a six percent global revenue fine for anyone who doesn't comply. The e, was come out and said they're currently non compliant.

And the E, U. Has a larger market in the U. S.

Is five hundred million people in the E. U. It's more than the U.

S. If, if, if xx kicked out of the E. U, they are no longer a global platform. It's absolutely existential.

And part of the requirements for that complaints is for the same disinformation experts and researchers to vet the flow of information, to spot this information. Demand is take down. And if x doesn't take IT down, then they are kick out of the E.

U. So this is a massive, massive level of power over a one. And the only question is, will the U.

S. State department, the only organ we have to defend U. S. Interest against europe, will they actually oppose IT? The problem is, as you're hearing me say, they are the ones who would have been organizing these censorship provisions to be with. So the very the only people that we have to be able to defend us from the threat where the people who who organized IT in the first place.

So I don't I don't have time to ask you about the effect of all of this by administration censorship on the present to race um but let me IT this final question. If trump wins, will you um have any hand in helping the new administration roll back the censorship regime in returning us to some sort of constitutional foundation as a country?

My purpose in life is to do everything I can to promote freedom of speech on the internet. It's a very dear thing to me. He has been since, you know, since I was, since I was a kid.

And I don't consider myself a political person. I know I had a political appointed spot. I would be equally comfortable in an R, F, K dollars or something.

Um you're one issue, man. I am, I am, but you need to understand these other issues to know what you're up against. And two, and this is, you know I get a lot of push back.

Oh, you know you're against the U. S. Military against the intel. I'm not i'm not i'm calling for reform so that this specific narrow new capacity that has become one of the biggest financial boom markets that we that, that government grants do in such a short period time. IT is newish.

It's not a baby anymore, but it's still in its adolescent stage. This can be rooted out. It's not like you're rooting out, you know, uh, the U.

S. War department, the f 8。 So so you my purpose is to pursue that to the best ability possible and whatever that means.

So I don't know you know what what role you might might even be more useful than the government or if it's more useful for me to simply publish what I publish, provide the insights that I do and have my you know but have what I do simply be what i've been doing I don't know, you know and all I can answer that question when the fog of war has has lifted more but you know I am not a political person. I am a one issue. I'm a one issue guy on this end that touches political matters. But um i'm going to be treated that purpose IT .

would be nice to see a free free speech are since IT is the first rate and nummer ated in the bill of rights .

to free speech ambassage yeah yeah.

Might be a made amazing conversation and i'm sorry you've got me so emotional about eleven times in the midi. But thank you. Thanks thanks for listen and stuck a cross and show. If you enjoy IT, you can go to tuck a cross in that com to see everything that we have made, the complete library, the cross that.