Hodgetwins Podcast - Twins Pod - Episode 4 - Mike Benz

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

Twins Pod Episode 4 with Cyber Security whistleblower, Mike Benz! Mike joins The Hodgetwins to expose the secrets of the deep state, the potential threat of AI, and how government agencies have the Twins themselves in censorship databases! Y’all are not gonna believe it! Get your Twins merch and have a chance to win a truck - https://officialhodgetwins.com/ Be the first to know about Optimal Human - https://optimalhuman.com/ Want to be a guest on the Twins Pod? Contact us at [e-mail] Download Free Twins Pod Content - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_iNb2RYwHUisypEjkrbZ3nFoBK8k60CO Follow Twins Pod Everywhere - X - https://twitter.com/TheTwinsPod Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/thetwinspod/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/twinspod TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@twinspod YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX8lCshQmMN0dUc0JmQYDdg Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/TwinsPod Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/79BWPxHPWnijyl4lf8vWVu?si=03960b3a8b6b4f74 Apple -  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/twins-pod/id1731232810

Mike Bands. I worked in the Trump White House. It sounds like democracy is already dead in this country. We sort of got this license to overthrow every country in the world under this idea of defending democracy. Yeah, that's what they say, Trump. We're going after him because he's a threat to our democracy. This infrastructure to attack foreign governments and to control the elections has now been turned on citizens. I'm pretty sure I saw your guys' names and databases a few times.

I mean, you guys were, I'm serious. Yeah, I'm going out of this. My God. So the CIA is watching us. Yes. What do you think is going to happen coming up with this election? Welcome to episode four. Our guest today is Mike Bands.

Who? Mike Bands. Who? Mike Bands. Mike Bins, bitch. Before we get to Mike Bands, we've got to pay the bills. Optimal human. It's a damn good drink.

It's all in one daily nutritional drink. It's great for your brain, your gut. Think he's even got some antibiotics. It's probiotics. Yeah. Oh, probiotics. Excuse me. Yeah, it's a green supplement.

You know what the best thing about it? It actually tastes good. It doesn't taste like you blended a damn oak tree and you drank it. It actually tastes good. Go to optimumuhuman.com. Yeah, yeah. Let's get to the episode. Yeah.

Mike Benz, we came across you on our Twitter on Tucker show. And just like Tucker was, we was just blown away at the wealth of information that you have. Like, you're an expert on censorship. Can you tell our crowd? audience more about yourself yeah so I was a corporate lawyer and practiced for about eight years in New York City and so I was doing mergers and acquisitions and private equity and finance stuff but I had grown up playing a lot of chess as a kid and I sort of lived through this period where chess computers overtook you know

humans and I was a little kid at the time and all the adults in the room were saying oh this is never gonna you know the human spirit will always persevere over artificial intelligence and that always seemed very silly to me as a kid because you could just play with these chess engines to analyze games. It was very obvious. They were just going to whoop, you know, people's butts. And in late 2016, I came across basically a bunch of research papers about a new artificial intelligence technique for analyzing speech. And I became fascinated by the speech online, like social media speech, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. And I had this weird flashback of like, wait a second, these engines

for analyzing speech work just like chess computers do. They basically allow you to analyze anything online to evaluate a narrative and it spits out a number in the same way that a chess engine does. And I said, holy crap, this is going to be the end of Western civilization if they use this for censorship, which is what these papers are applying to do. And I started telling everybody, you know, just in my lawyer network and my social network about this and nobody believed the implications of this. So I said about basically this life path of, you know, proving this and showing all the net. networks behind it and the funding and, you know, it turned out it went all the way up to the military, which bothered me very greatly. And then that took me in this pursuit of understanding the censorship industry, and that took me into the government.

So I, you know, worked in the Trump White House and then in the State Department running the Internet. It's very fascinating with somebody who would say that there's actually industry behind censorship. I had no idea that was, I mean, I knew conservatives, you know, certain things was getting censored, fact checkers out. I knew all that was all bull, but I never understood there was an industry and our government was involved. I was just thinking it was just Facebook. Yeah, I was just thinking there's a bunch of liberals don't want to see Biden get into office. Yeah. No, it's kind of amazing that way.

I mean, understanding the industrial aspect of it is kind of the key to understanding it all, because right now you have hundreds of thousands of people whose job in this country is to censor the Internet. That job description, content moderator, did not exist before 2016. There was a little bit of it with respect to like child porn or spam, but never for speech violations. That was a very new field created after the 2016 election, and it was created specifically because of the 2016 election. A lot of it, they were using the excuse of Russia Gate.

It was really just a proxy political attack against anybody who undermined the foreign policy establishment, which might take us into the larger layers of this censorship industry. But, you know, the industry itself is comprised of Ford, different categories of institutions. You have the government side, you have the private sector side, where the platforms are, where a bunch of these censorship mercenary firm, these technology developers are. You have the civil society side, which are the university centers, the NGOs, the non-profits, the foundations, and the community activist groups who are snowballed into it. And then you have

this sort of news media and fact-checking side. When you say NGOs, explain more, clearly, be more. So NGO means non-governmental organization, but it's a bit of a misnomer. You know, What we're talking about here are more what's often referred to as a gongo, a government-organized, non-governmental organization. Okay, yeah. So when the CIA wants to do something but doesn't want to march in with a, you know, a W-2 form and a name tag that says, hi, my name is Mike. I work for the CIA. They use cutouts. They use non-governmental organizations.

Like big tech. Well, big tech will be more on the private side, but big tech will be partnered with these. For example, you might say something like the German Marshall Fund might be considered. That's basically a big pool of money that's technically a nonprofit. And it was sort of set up around the time that the U.S. had the Marshall Plan in Europe where we were paying a bunch of European countries to reconstruct after World War II. And in return, we were controlling their political ecosystems. And so the government would interface with the NGO, the non-governmental organization, the

non-governmental organization would interface with these different groups within all these different countries. And that way there's a deniable link between the actions of the government and what this independent nonprofit is doing. So they're essentially going around the Constitution? Yeah, they're going around. Well, they're going around the Constitution. Now, there's a lot of reasons to do it. Beyond it being, you know, illegal to do directly in some cases, and this gets into the scandals around the censorship of the 2020 election in COVID, when places like the Department of Homeland Security,

we're doing it in a very illegal way as the trial courts have ruled in the Missouri v. Biden case, which is now before the Supreme Court. But it's also done for diplomatic reasons. It's a real scandal if the government does something directly versus if it just happens to happen by itself because a bunch of independent people made it happen. The dirty little trick there is that the government will talk to that network or will pay that network to do it. What you find is time after time in the censorship industry, every single one of the major NGOs in the censorship industry are subsidized by the U.S. government. They're either paid for by the Pentagon or the State Department or CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy,

or they're paid for by the Department of Homeland Security, or even the National Science Foundation. So there's hundreds of millions of dollars swirling around just on the government side. And then you have this billion-dollar industry, multi-billion-dollar industry. You know what's funny? They said Trump colluded with Russia, but our government is actually colluding to the government. against us. Yeah, well, you know, I sort of refer to this sometimes as the, you know, when you're doing a, you're doing like a thumby war and someone uses that move where they just cheat and they use the right. So we have, we have something which is basically our foreign facing department of dirty tricks.

After World War II, there was this, you know, sort of, we call it the rules-based international order, this, this construction of new rules about how the world will work. And this was, you know, the end of empire, as it was used to be from the medieval period until, you know, after World War II. And we had something in 1948, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which said that you can no longer conquer territory militarily by force. There has to be some sort of democratic ratification by the, you know, the people itself, which meant that war shifted into this political control rather than this military dominance type model. It's psychological now.

Yeah, it's psychological and it's political. which means controlling the hearts and minds of the psychology of the people who live in every plot of dirt in the world essentially in order for them to generate or ratify the government that you want to do favors for you. Now, when this happened, so 1948, we used to have this thing called the Department of War, but when 1948 happened and we said, okay, there's no more, you can no longer just be an empire by declaring war on everyone, we renamed it to the Department of Defense. It did the same thing. A euphemism. Yeah, exactly. And also in 1948 set up the Central Intelligence Agency to be this sort of dark arts cloak and dagger way for the State Department to manipulate foreign countries' political affairs, but

having plausible deniability, meaning the government would lie and say that we're not doing it. The State Department would say, oh, no, we have totally normal diplomatic relations with country acts, and that they would be working behind the scenes with the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow that government so that it would be pliable to the State Department's interests in terms of giving up their natural resources or allowing us to build a military base or whatnot. So you had this new means of war that turned to the hearts and minds rather than to the military. NATO itself, you know, the Western military alliance would basically

codify this after the 2016 with a doctrine called from tanks to tweets, saying that, you know, war is no longer about tanks. It's about tweets on the Internet. Trump understands that a lot. I thought he won the election. Well, this, well, the thing is, so we had this, so we had this Department of Dirty Tricks apparatus within our government, within the State Department and the Pentagon and the CIA, to do all these dirty tricks abroad, to overthrow governments, to control their media, to bribe their civil society institutions so that they do what we want them to do. Medal in their elections.

Yes, a medal in elections. Which is very dangerous when the government has close ties with the media, and the media is not going to hold anybody responsible. And that's going to overturn democracy in itself. No, that's exactly right. But because we have this dirty tricks power to do these things. things abroad, anytime you can ensnare a domestic politician in something that has a foreign nexus, it's like using a cheat code to destroy that person's life. You're having a thummy

war in domestic politics, the Republicans against the Democrats or whatever. And if you can basically say, oh, well, you're a Russian agent, boom, that allows you to now sick the FBI on that person, the CIA on that person, the DOJ on that person. The Pentagon's counterintelligence people come after you, the State Department's counterintelligence. It allows you to basically turn inward the Department of Dirty tricks that we use to overthrow foreign governments. Like on Trump?

It's exactly what happened, right? I mean, the Russia Gates scenario started with the CIA on January 6th, 2017. It's sort of the other January 6th in this story. So you said this infrastructure that you're talking about, it was to go up to foreign governments. You're saying now this infrastructure is

turning against our own people and our last president of the United States. Fully, fully. Has that ever happened in history? Well, you can make an argument. There was a strange situation in 1962 with JFK, but we'll leave that aside. Well, someone shot him.

Right, it's never been ratified. And, you know, starting in the Wilson era, in the 1910s in this country, we had this, you know, we sort of got this license to overthrow every country in the world under this idea of defending democracy. That's what they say, Trump. We're going after him because he's a threat to our democracy. They're using the same game plan they use for other countries for president.

And it's the same majority of people believe it. I remember when Trump, when the presidency, I had an agent working in Hollywood and he said, man, I can't believe it. Trump's been, he colluded with Russia to win the election. I was like, really? You actually believe that shit? I was like, people are just so gullible. Well, and part of that is because this blob apparatus, this foreign-facing Department of Dirty, tricks allows you know has this very very very close relationship with the media and not only that it can pay for this surround sound media all of the different you know NGOs that operate that we just talked

about these non-governmental these government organized government subsidized non-governmental organizations all get money from the state department and they all run these headlines around you know trump russia trump russia so you are you're walking around the universe as a normal civilian not realizing that you know, it's basically the cloak and dagger side of the government, which is paying vast swaths of the media for you to believe what you believe about the Trump-Russia situation. Propaganda essentially. Yeah, it's exactly what we accused the Soviets of doing during, you know, when they were under the iron curtain.

And it's exactly what we accused North Korea of doing, of running their own, you know, state-controlled media apparatus. And, you know, you see this now with the Biden administration itself is even running, is arguing before the Supreme Court that the First Amendment, as it's classically interpreted, should no longer apply in the social media era because the First Amendment did not anticipate freedom of speech on the Internet. And there has to be a role for the government

to quarterback this censorship apparatus. That's bizarre because social media is nothing but public discourse, just like we've always had in this country. Yeah, yeah. You know, it's the same argument they did around the Second Amendment. A, the Second Amendment didn't envision that weapons we were going to have today, which is the whole big. the argument. I mean, what's you telling me? I mean, what I just heard from you, it sounds like

democracy is already dead in this country. Well, they've redefined it. They did a really cute thing after the 2016 election. If you look for it, and you run sort of a controlled bullion Google search for those four months after Trump won and before all this got metastasized, they were openly saying that maybe democracy is not actually the best form of government. Maybe democracy is actually not what we should be gaming for. We need more bumper cars. We need more bumper cars on democracy. And they essentially came up with this cute little rebranding technique to refer to democracy as being about a consensus of institutions rather than being about a consensus of individuals. So when we think, you know... It's not we to people, it's what they want. Yeah, it's

we the blob. You know, it's, it's we, you know, for the one percent. More percent. The one percent of the country. Yeah. And it's, and it's this exact network of the, you know, the foreign policy establishment. The way I think is easiest to look at it is we have an American Empire. And it's normal people just, you know, live in their daily lives, don't, don't necessarily really process where everything comes from. You know, the parts for this microphone, you know, all the different metals and, you know, supply parts and where they all come from, probably comes from 25 different countries if you add it all up with these very complex supply chains. And for us to be able to produce this requires our multinational corporations to be able to

do at a competitive rate, which means we need our empire. managers at the State Department, at the Defense Department, in our intelligence communities, to be able to manipulate the governments in these countries where these parts come from in order to make sure that they're not nationalizing them, that we get control of it, that we get control of it at a competitive market rate so that we can enjoy the sort of middle-class lifestyle that America sort of grew in the 20th century. Is this bribery? It's bribery and its control, but you could argue that much of the 20th century wealth

of the American citizenry wouldn't have been possible without this it is a mean old world out there. When they were setting this up, there's a great memo by George Kennan, who's one of the godfathers of the CIA. He writes in 1948, right after 12 days after we rigged the Italian election,

by working with the mafia and stuffing ballot boxes and doing all sorts of dirty tricks. He writes this memo, he was classified like 40 years later, where he says, listen, the memo was called the inauguration of organized political warfare.

This is right at the outset of the end of World War II. and he says, listen, we just did a really dirty thing here in Italy, and we're going to keep doing it, and here's why. If we don't have a Department of Dirty Trick's capacity, the Bolsheviks are going to do it, and they're going to control every plot of dirt on the earth. So we need to be able to build up a capacity that this country has never had before.

It's going to look really bad, but as long as we don't use it against American citizens and as purely confined to abroad, it will be down to the benefit of the American citizens. And you can make the argument that this is how, you know, this is how we had cheap gas prices. We were controlling the internal politics of basically every major carbon, you know, a hydrocarbon producer, you know, until at least the late 70s.

Same thing with rare earth minerals and precious metals and all around the world. We were also, by controlling those countries' governments, we also could pry open their markets. So when we produce steel here, we could export it, and then there would be more jobs for Americans working at those steel companies. You can make the argument that for a long time, this blob, and its evil architecture to some extent, was actually a net benefit for the American citizens.

And then as globalization matured, and we no longer had those steel companies here in the U.S. Everything went overseas, right? Everything went overseas. And these multinational corporations started to have most of the profits coming from their overseas market. There began to be a divide between the managers of the American homeland, the managers of the American Empire,

and the citizens of the American homeland. And this is really the divide between the foreign, policy establishment and people who are focused on domestic priorities. You know, how much does it cost to go to college? How much does it cost to own a home? What's the tax rate? You know, what's, you know, how clean are my streets? These sorts of things. These are what everyday American civilians are, you know, care about. But when they make a vote to clean that up that comes at the expense of the managers of the American Empire, then you have a big conflict. And this is what we're seeing right now with the Trump situation. You know, they came after Trump because of his, of his

policy on neutrality with with Russia at a time when we were running an operation to basically pry the last vestiges of the Soviet Empire into the into the NATO orbit and his policy around you know focusing on on American welfare making America great again rather than our policy of being the world policeman and you know spending hundreds of billions of dollars on everything from foreign aid to foreign militarism he was the first president in 40 years not to declare a new war he also you know we had a policy of war with Syria he got rid of that He famously didn't just defeat the Clinton dynasty.

He defeated the Bush dynasty, and not only that, he said that being involved in Iraq was a big, fat mess. No Republican had ever said that. So this was a focus on the American homeland rather than the American Empire. So the empire managers were living in the era of the revenge of the Empire managers. And it's now an open question whether the civilians have the ability to even vote the empire managers out of power. You know, you can make the argument that what we're seeing right now between, you know, Trump facing 700 years in prison, being bankrupted, you know, potentially with $500 million worth of, you know,

damages in a lawsuit that had no damages, actually, to any of the banks. You know, these dirty tricks done in the name of democracy, we were always sort of okay with them when they were being done to people in Baghdad, and now it's coming to the people in Boston. And, you know, it's a question. Yeah. That's great. You know that term you use, empire overseers? Like, this probably is going to open up with a can of worms, like the bushes. They profit a lot of money off the war.

Oh, my God, incredible. Their whole empire is built away. They epitomized that term. So putting America first hurts the American Empire overseas and a lot of money for wealthy people. Completely. That's actually the whole reason that the New York Times just, the CIA just invited the New York Times to this top secret, you know, highly classified CIA. base on the outer banks of Ukraine. That's a huge conflict, right?

It's a huge conflict, so this intelligence was not declassified. The CIA invited the New York Times in, had them interview 200 people. You can't just walk up to a highly classified CIA base in eastern Ukraine and, you know, just say, hey, I want to publish a scoop about you guys. It's ridiculous. But the CIA handpicked the folks in the Intelligence Bureau at the New York Times to write this glowing puff piece about how important it is to preserve funding for the CIA in Ukraine and how it will basically be the end of the republic if House Republicans vetoed this new Ukraine spending bill. You have one after another, all of the major CIA State Department Pentagon folks, if you look for them on Twitter or in their own sort of blob magazines, are all saying that the biggest threat to democracy right now is how,

Republican Speaker Mike Johnson vetoing this Ukraine bill because, you know, it's like $60 billion in a new cash in fusion. Gaslighting everybody. Right. Now, you know, we're living at a time when, you know, people are living hand to mouth. You know, no one can afford a home. Nobody benefits. None of the citizens benefit one iota from, from $60 billion more on top of the 200 billion we've already spent. And if you think this is the end of it, at $60 billion now, it's not. It's this thing is going to be trillions over the next decade. There's no, you know, there's no bottom to it. Why do we got such an important stake in Ukraine? I don't understand that. Well, this gets to a divide between the financial interests of the citizens and the financial interests of the empire

managers. So the empire managers have this big... Oh, I forgot about those assholes. Yeah, well, they haven't forgotten about you. Yeah, that's a problem. Yeah, got a damn good episode going on. And before we get to that, hey, over 94% of y'all are watching, but you ain't subscribe. What kind of bullshit is that? Did you forget? We got a lot of damn good shows coming. Yeah. I mean, famous people.

Yeah. I'm not having a bunch of plumbers and got some real people. Well, they're real too, but they ain't. They ain't famous. I got famous people coming on. Make sure you subscribe. Hit the bell for notification so y'all get notified whenever we got a damn new show coming. These people, they got brains.

They know how to subscribe. Well, the white producers is telling us to say that. So the Ukraine's story is a really fascinating one for a couple of reasons. The number one is the energy story. So, you know, the Russian, the Soviet Empire ended in 1991, essentially. We won the Cold War. And for about seven years, Russia was as much a satellite state of the U.S. as Alaska, or as Ukraine currently is.

We basically took over Russia from 1991 to 1998. Boris Yeltsin, the president there, faxed one of our CIA cutouts, the National Dement for Democracy, permission to bomb his own parliament building in 1993 when Russians were so upset with him that their own parliament was turning against Yeltsin. There's a great movie called Spinning Boris that you can watch, which is a Hollywood movie about how the CIA and the State Department worked to prop up Boris Yeltsin in his 1996 election when it was basically weekend at Bernie's.

The guy was so drunk falling over. over himself. He can barely stand up, let alone do it. So we sent Hollywood over there to basically, you know, razzle dazzle the Russian people. And in the end, it resulted in something called shock therapy, which was the mass privatization of all of Russia's, almost all of Russia's state-owned assets. So this is one of these things that's hard for a lot of conservatives in the modern era to sort of recalibrate, which is that, you know, we all, none of us like communism, socialism, all that stuff. It's, you know, it's bad news bears all around. But we, our blob, our Pentagon State Department CIA apparatus during the 20th century

went around the world overthrowing socialist communist governments and then... Using communist tactics. Yeah, you could argue that, definitely. But the net result of it was to... What communism and socialism does is it takes assets held by the industrial sector that are normally owned by individuals and holds it, you know, nominally in trust for the people in the form of the government. So it's like, you know, sovereign wealth funds and you have a state-owned gas company rather than an Exxon Mobil or a Chevron or whatever. So what you end up

having is, you know, in the Soviet case, you know, trillions of dollars essentially in state-owned wealth. And if that could simply be privatized by being just turned over to, you know, the folks, companies in America are in London, then you basically loot it. You know, it's like taking their gold. You're just taking what used to be held, you know, by a, you know, potentially malevolent government. But now it's not even being held by the people in that country for those people. It's being held by us. So it's a way of taking those assets.

So we were in the process of privatizing Russia in the 1990s. And then Putin rose to power in 1999, you know, former, you know, KGB Intellect. intelligence guy. Their stock market just crashed 95%. They only had two things going for them to reassert themselves on the world stage, and those were basically their energy and their military powers. So the energy side of Russia is super fascinating. This is where it gets to the whole Ukraine story. So there was a company called Gazprom, which was the state-owned natural gas company in Russia that was in the early 2000s, it was the largest company in the world, not just the largest gas company. It was the largest company because it was responsible for the overwhelming

majority of the national revenue of the largest country in the world by landmass, Russia. And its revenues all came from being the gas supplier to Europe. Gas, there's basically two ways of having gas come in so you can heat your homes and so that industry can run on it. And that's through something called a natural gas, pipeline, which is just a super simple. There's a share on the ground. You just send it through a pipeline, door to door. And then there's a much more complicated and expensive process called

LNG, liquefied natural gas, which is where you, if you're shipping it super long distance and you can't just do a pipeline, if, say, you're in Houston, and you get, you have gas deposits, you can liquefy it, then you can put it on a tanker, you could ship it 5,000 miles across the ocean, you could de-liquify

it, and then you can put it. That's a much more expensive process, much higher profit margins. when Russia started to reassert control over Central and Eastern Europe, at a time when NATO was trying to fold all these countries in and basically control all of their markets, control all their political ecosystems, we were taking over and expanding into those countries piece by piece throughout the entire 1990s and 2000s.

By around 2005-2006, Putin started to use gas diplomacy as a way to reassert political control over Central and Eastern Europe, basically from Germany into the eastern flank, you know, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, that whole region. And this is because these countries were highly reliant on Russia for gas. And those economic ties allow deeper political ties

with Russia. And so it started to reverse the control that the State Department that our foreign-facing Department of Dirty tricks had over these regions. Now it also happens that this mantle here, Eurasia, is two-thirds of the world's hydrocarbons. two-thirds of the entire world's oil and gas is basically concentrated in this area.

And our own major political power structures are highly invested in that story. So you mentioned George Bush, for example. George Bush got his start before he was even the, before he was president, and before he was Ron Reagan's vice president, and before he was Central Intelligence Agency Director in 1976, he was working as an employee for the Central Intelligence Agency in their oil intelligence field. he was he was the you know one of the basically oil ambassadors for the CIA to Latin America and much of the the historical Republican Party power you know the Democrats have long sort of controlled the

you know Hollywood and you know universities and media and things like this and in the way Republicans had relative political parity was because they had the Chamber of Commerce they had the big corporations who all wanted low taxes and free enterprise and who supported management against union labor and through the military, which was primarily focused against left-wing communism during the 20th century. And the third major school was the energy companies, Exxon, Chevron, you know, Halliburton, you know, the Carlisle Group, all of these major energy investors in the oil and gas space who are reliant on the military and on the CIA and the State Department to secure their sources of oil and gas. So this is why you find the Bush family and

the Cheneas all over the Ukraine story and all over Georgia and Azerbaijan and that whole region. So basically, as Russia started to reassert control over Eurasia and over Central and Eastern Europe, in coming into the 2010s, we developed this foreign policy establishment focus on getting Russia to cut off its energy relations, getting Europe to cut off its energy relations with Russia. So we forced them to go through this energy diversification where they would still have some, still buy some from Russia, but they would start to buy more from, you know, U.S. companies. You could argue this is for the benefit of, you know, U.S. citizens or whatever. So basically, you know, where it currently stands is we thought we could overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014.

You know, as we did, we pumped in $5 billion through the State Department and U.S.A. and the National Endowment for Democracy to overthrow Ukraine's government. And at the time, we were planning to do this grand Ukraine energy play where all of that Russian gas I was just describing, it runs through Ukraine, or it runs into Germany through the Nord Stream pipelines, you know, rest and peace. But those were the two main portals into Europe for all of Russia's, you know, national revenue, essentially, other than on the oil side. Now, we were expecting Russia to just curl up and die when we did that and us to expand the empire. And this would redound to all the benefits, all these private companies that both high-ranking Republicans and Democrats are invested in. George Soros himself was locked in a power struggle with Putin for control over Ukraine's state-owned natural gas giant called NAFTA gas. There's a big plan to privatize that state-owned company, turn it over to investors on Wall Street in London, and then kick Russia out.

And now you've got a trillion-dollar windfall profit because all the revenue that Russia used to be making is now being, made by U.S. and London companies. So Soros is a big part of that blob. Huge, huge part of it. You know, Soros went from being a mere millionaire to a mega-billionaire by working with the State Department and the CIA and the DoD in the 1980s as part of our national endowment for democracy. This is sort of the biggest CIA cutout we have.

Push, starting in 1983, you know, the CIA got in a lot of trouble in the United States. 1970s with what it was doing to Democrats. You know, this is what the Church Committee hearings were in 1975, 76. So this was, you know, the CIA is not supposed to operate domestically, but it was infiltrating student newspapers on U.S. college campuses. It was working with, you know, it was trying to tilt feminist groups because these groups were anti-Vietnam War. These groups were, you know, were concerned about, you know, imperialism

and how that was affecting the second and third world on human rights grounds. And so because if people vote to end that funding, then the CIA becomes totally toothless. The CIA became focused on domestic politics and stopping a particular faction within the left. And this started really tick off Democrats. And so there were these accountability hearings in 1975 and 1976. Jimmy Carter became president in 1976 on the back of these scandals around the national security state attacking them. And so when Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980, the CIA's name was dirt.

There's a lot of talk about just rolling it up entirely. So he came up with this new plan. I mean, it wasn't him really, but he ratified it, to create, you know, to use these NGOs to do indirectly what the CIA used to do directly. One of these is the National Endowment for Democracy, which became a very close partner of George Soros in 1983. And so Soros initially set up the Open Society Foundation

in South Africa in 1979 as a tax loophole for his kids. He writes about this and all the biographies about him. He's very open about this. But then in the 1980s, when the State Department was looking for partners to run these clandestine operations, to turn these countries in Central and Eastern Europe from being communist to being capitalist, they were looking for partners in the civil society world, in the foundations world, to be able to run funding to, to be able to incubate basically rent-a-riot mobs,

to be able to work with the education institutions. And so George Soros became an arm of the State Department, an arm of NATO at that point. And he happened to have a really cute trick up his sleeve, which was that his whole job from that point, coming into the 1980s, was he was a speculator on foreign currencies. He was working at a New York hedge fund where his portfolio was betting on the direction of, you know, currencies of foreign governments, whether they would collapse or whether they would rise. So he had firsthand knowledge. he was backdoor trading, right? Yes, it's the world. I called it backdoor trade.

It's inside trade. Yeah, it's the ultimate insider trading. You know, years in advance the direction of the currencies of countries because you're working directly with NATO and the State Department to overthrow those countries over the next, you know, six to 24 months. You're personally, you know, shepherding it. So you can bet on that because you know the battering ram of the United States government is going to descend on poor little Poland or Hungary.

You know, and so, you know, so this was basically, you know, how he got, how he got his start. But he has, he does this and this is, this is what the Soros Network does. It's not just the Soros Network. It's a bunch of others who are now in on this game, you know, from the, you know, from the London set and from the Houston Republican set. John McCain. The Biden's? Yeah, the Bidens. And the Bidens are very close to the Republican part of this blob, you know, the sort of neo-conservative wing.

And this is why this is much, much, much bigger than Republican versus Democrat. I mean, these people would love nothing more than for Nikki Haley to become president. So it's Republicans, if Democrats work and you're able to keep this going? Yeah, it's the foreign policy establishment side of the Republican and Democrat parties. Because it's funny, no senator, no congressman is saying any of this shit. Well, you know, if you look for it, you can read between the lines and immediately see these things. And, you know, often you can just identify it by their membership in various organizations. So, for example, the National Endowment for Democracy,

who I've mentioned a few times here, who is the world's most obvious tell for whether the CIA is operating in the region or not, has two different branches for the Republican, the Democrat side of it. The Democrat side is something called the National Democratic Institute, or the NDI, and the Republican side is called the International Republican Institute

or the IRA. Now, so this is a, you know, the Washington Post itself described the National Endowment for Democracy as a CIA cut out in the 19th. 1990s. This is an open secret. Well, guess who was on the chairman's advisory board for the NDI? Hunter Biden.

That's fucking nuts. And who was on the board of Burisma with Hunter Biden? Khofer Black, who had spent 30 years at the CIA, won a CIA's Distinguished Medal Award, and was Mitt Romney's personal envoy to the intelligence community during his 2012 presidential run. And who is Mitt Romney on the board of? He's on the board of the IRA, the International Republican Institute, the GOP side of the CIA. That's crazy. He trashes Trump every opportunity he gets. And you know who ran the IRA for 25 years from its outset until he ran for president in 2008?

John McCain. So the two guys right before Trump and the Republican Party. So the three guys. Or Toronto's. So you had George W. Bush, whose dad was the CIA director before becoming president. Then the next Republican president of Trump was John McKeon. Kane who ran the GOP's largest CIA cutout for 25 years. And then the next presidential candidate was Mitt Romney, who was currently a board member

at the GOP side of CIA. Did they work together to get the first black president? I always felt Obama's a sham. There was all collusion to get the first black president because I actually voted for Mitt Romney and I actually thought I was doing the company a favor. The country of favor. But he's a snake too. Well, you were doing the company a favor.

That's what they call inside the company. That's what they call the CIA. Wow, this is so daubalical. It's like, it's kind of infuriating. Like, you're like an expert on all of this. Like, my brother alluded to, like, why don't we hear, like, this straightforward, like, coming from you, like, from our senators, from Congress, Republicans. Well, there's a very delicate tightrope dance when it comes to international diplomacy and all of this. In fact, here's a great example.

So Marco Rubio, you know, who was, you know, between number two and number three running against Trump in the 2016 election on the Republican side. He is, you know, he has presidential ambition still. He is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. You know, the very small, you know, gang of people who are allowed to oversee the Central Intelligence Agency, you know, in the Senate. This was what came out of these Church Committee hearings.

The CIA never had oversight until these hearings, and now it has got an oversight committee in the Senate an oversight committee in the house. So he's in the oversight committee in the house, one of the eight people or whatever. And, you know, he just yesterday came out with a statement saying, you know, I always knew we were losing in Ukraine, but I could never say it until today because I didn't want to, you know, create an international incident by, you know, by just talking about it openly. And this is one of the issues when it comes to statecraft, which is what you're talking about inherently here is is cloak and dagger work. The CIA is has a legal obligation to lie about what it does.

Under National Security Council 10-2, the plausible deniability doctrine of the CIA says you have to, everything you do on the operation side has to be formally deniable by the U.S. government. You are, you know, it is a violation of your charter to tell people what you're doing. And so, you know, you have this weird situation where, you know, Everything that the State Department and the Pentagon does has to be synchronized with what the CIA is doing. The CIA has to lie about what's doing, which means the State Department and the Pentagon have to lie about what they're doing because it has to walk this tightrope dance of what we're saying overtly, but what we're doing covertly. Sounds like our media today.

Yeah. Well, it's a state mandated schizophrenia. So when our media sort of echoes that schizophrenia, they are, you know, they're reverberating the, you know, the echoes coming out of our foreign policy establishment. But this is where most money of the American budget goes. You know, the Pentagon receives more funding than any other agency by far. The foreign, we spend more money on managing the foreign, our empire than we do on the homeland. They are our citizens.

Yes. They are more powerful than our institutions for, you know, for domestic affairs. They're more well-funded. They have a license to do dirty tricks that we don't. Because technically, the domestic-facing institutions are bound by the Constitution. They're all manner of things for spying and surveillance, working with the National Security and Wing of the Justice Department, which is a privilege they have because they're allowed to do evil things to other countries.

And if they just launder that through a counterintelligence predicate at home or a democracy predicate now at home, they can turn it on us. Well, they have. January 6th CIA, were they involved on January 6 in the crowd? I mean, a lot people say it's a conspiracy theory, but after hearing, what you just had to say is

like, it wouldn't shock me if they were. There's, I'm not you know. You trade it softly. Where's the button? Next topic, next topic. I don't want you to come up with this. There are many strange aspects of January 6th that are yet to be unveiled that

They're going to take years. And frankly... It's going to have to get declassified probably. I don't know what it will take to be able to have the political power to get to the bottom of various aspects of January 6th because the issue is, is there's so much low-hanging fruit.

Let me give you one example. We're still missing the missing money shot. There is a camera directly over... Have you seen a picture of the January 6 bomber taking out the bomb from the device on January 5th at roughly 8 o'clock p.m. and placing at the park bench. Well, there is a camera directly overlooking the DNC building, which, by the way, was the exact same building that got burglarized in Watergate,

funnily enough. I mean, it was a different location, but, you know, it's just 50 years before. But you'd think they'd have better than a one-frame-per-second video camera on that. But nevertheless, to this day, there is a camera that was disclosed on September 8th, 2021 by the FBI. last posted video on FBI.gov. We haven't had a new piece of video disclosed by the FBI in three years now, almost. And then's January 6th. Yes.

That video directly overlooks the park bench. You can actually, it's trained on the pipe bomber, the suspected pipe bomber, as he approaches the park benches and then is on his phone doing text messages. And then he leaves and does this sort of L walk around the DNC building. Now, according to the FBI's own timeline, and according to a camera, actually on the opposite side of the bench, we are told that this pipe bomber walks right back up to that bench and takes out the bomb and places it directly next to the bench.

Why does the camera cut off when this person leaves the area? Why don't we just have five minutes later from the same camera where that person will take the bomb out of the bag and place it? I mean, I could go about, I know more about this topic than humanly, you know. Same thing happened in Epstein in jail. The camera. at all. Yeah, well, that's exactly. It would be the world's easiest thing for the House Judiciary Committee right now to subpoena the FBI for the full tape. I mean, it's literally

just, hey, you already have the stationary camera set up. It's already, there's so much funny business around that placing them. Because Kamala Harris drove right by it. The Justice Department didn't even know that. The first year of the, of indictments, the Justice Department, the DOJ wrote in briefs that, you know, that these People running around the Capitol were hypothetically terrorizing, you know, the first elected female, black vice president and the KKK type things around that. She's not black, by the way. Just want to port that out.

I'll let you guys let me get that. All I'm saying is that this was in DOJ indictments. And the DOJ had to revise all of those when one year later it came out that Kamal Harris wasn't even inside because she was right next to the pipe bomb the whole time. Same thing, the AOC says she was on attack and she was running for her life. Oh, that was bullshit. Right. But there's all these open questions about what exactly the deal was with this pipe bomb that theoretically was the only mass casualty event. And why it is that the DC fusion cell was calling local hospitals in D.C. telling them to stock up on extra blood supplies because three days later, you know, they had a suspicion of a suspected mass casualty event. What was acting AG Jeffrey Rosen doing with this whole Quantico team around a suspected, you know, weapon of mass destruction in D.C. that day. By the way, that's the legal term for a pipe bomb. Those people in the

Whitmer Fednapping case who were charged with possession of a weapon of mass destruction. Those were pipe bombs. And who sold them those pipe bombs, the FBI. Not only that, it was the same FBI director, Stephen Tantuano, who was transferred to the D.C. office. That's why they got to quit it. Everybody says, there's some bombs, go blow their bitch up.

There's so much there on that from the role of Mark Millie and the military to the role of the Department of Homeland Security. And most of the footage was lost, right? Well, you know, it's being slowly disclosed, you know, Mike Johnson just, you know, I think, you know, distributed another 5,000 hours or so. But, you know, it would be extremely easy if they really wanted it to just subpoena the FBI just for that one DNC pipe bomber tape. It's one thing. All you need is the chain of custody of that tape. And that would immediately solve, you know, half of the open issues around the pipe bomb.

But one of the issues is, is, you know, the closer you get to blowing open these type of dirty deeds, the closer you get to getting indicted. Look at what just happened with this Hunter Biden situation. Yeah. Hunter Biden, you know, as we just mentioned, was neck deep in CIA intrigues around Ukraine. What happened to all the FBI folks who were supposed to be, you know, who were right in the middle of that? So the FBI agent, McGonigal, who was overseeing Hunter Biden's, you know, the desk overseeing Hunter Biden there, just got, you know, arrested by the Justice Department. The FBI informant, who was the whistleblower for the House Judiciary Committee for these, you know, for this impeachment hearing, just got arrested.

You know, I made a tweet yesterday. It's like, you know, in the movie Goodfellas, when there's this Lufthansa heist and just the bodies start disappearing. They start appearing in, you know, frozen, you know, me. meat storage units. Everybody who gets close to this thing gets rolled up. And they're rolling up Trump. They're rolling up Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Clark. They're 19 of his lawyers in Georgia.

They're talking about rolling up Mike's speaker, Mike Johnson. I just saw something the other day where they're trying to get him for these Russia links, which means someone DM'd him. It's like what they did to Paul Manafort. It's not perpally. Well, but this is the thing. It gets back to the Thumbie War, right? when you can use this counterintelligence predicate,

that's just an intelligence operation at home. They are not allowed to sick these Department of Dirty tricks that are supposed to be the pit bull protecting the house or outsiders on people inside the house. But if you just go from, hey, it's not an intelligence operation. It's counterintelligence to stop U.S. citizens from their role with foreign countries. That tips, that's that little cheap shot

because there's no stopping this. You can't stop that little pinky finger because it's 100 years in prison. You can indict a ham sandwich on it. You're dead in the water in a D.C. jury pool on this. And you're bankrupted even if you live through the process. Paul Manafort, what they did to him? Trump's campaign manager.

They got him for disclosing internal polling data. To someone who happened to be Russian. Well, that just means, hey, I think I'm going to win this election. Oh, really? What makes you say that? Well, look, it looks like our polling shows we're going to win. Boom, 100 years in prison. I mean, it's that easy. That's what Trump's referring to, the deep state.

Yeah, exactly what the deep state is. Right, and they're protecting their own. And, you know, we're living in a world where it's been like this for decades. How do we the people stop this? Well, this is the issue. Can it be stopped? You know, it's like, that question is like asking, you know, how would people in a foreign country, you know, stop the, you know, the Pentagon and the State Department.

Going to burn it down. You know, it's like, well, no, I'm probably this about it. What I'm saying? I'm just joking. No, fuck it. Go get the trucks. I'm bringing the flags and all this. Yeah, I'm not condone the violence in any form. But, you know, it's a little bit like, you know, ants who think that they're, you know,

in a king of the ant hill sort of coming up for land and seeing giant, you know, human creatures. And, you know, the ants are now going back. and they'll be like, oh my God, do you see the size of these things? What we're up against is something that is sufficiently massive to totally recalibrate perceptions of strategy, I think, which is why whenever people ask me for solutions, my first, you know, my first way to answer that is, have you gone through your five stages of grief yet on this? Because we can't even talk about solutions until people have fully gone through the phases of, you know, denial, anger, bargaining, you know, bargaining, depression,

and then acceptance. Because the solutions are going to seem so long into the future, so, you know, doesn't get us anywhere type thing, because it's, you know, what we're going to ultimately need to do at some point is have the blob itself, have the empires of the, of the American, the managers the American Empire come to our side on this. This is not something that can be done just completely outside in. We've constructed this government

so that they have all the power. And we're seeing right now, some of these questions will be answered by the next 10 months in terms of the severity of what we're up against you. A lot of people thought during, I thought during, you know, when I was in the White House and all of this Russiagate stuff was happening,

There was a pervading sense that it was really, really nasty, and they were rolling up a bunch of lieutenants, and they were bankrupting people. This is horrible, and this should never happen, but they're not going to indict Trump. I mean, that was sort of what, you know, they're going to use it for pressure and leverage. They're going to make sure that, you know, he does a strike in Syria, you know, for show.

They're going to make sure that he gives money to various, you know, foreign policy institutions that he didn't want to, in order to curry favor with enough of these sort of CIA Republicans that he funds, fends off a consensus vote. by Democrats. It'll change the negotiating leverage with the executive branch, but they're not going to actually roll him up. That is now changing. He's facing 700 years in prison. That is, that's a death sentence. That's an assassination. Right. Now, there's the question of, you know, are they going to, if they basically bankrupt him completely and bring him completely to his knees, would he agree

in order to save his own skin at the last minute to, you know, not run for president in order to, Now, that seems increasingly unlikely, and as the polling gets more and more in his favor, you're renting more and more of a bizarro world. But, you know, you now have this situation just yesterday, where the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the state of Colorado to kick Trump off the ballot. Well, so now Jamie... That's the real threat against democracy, actually trying to remove him from the ballot box.

And now what was the response by that? The response was by Jamie Raskin, one of these sort of blob monsters in Congress, to say, okay, well, now the Supreme Court's that down, we're going to go into Congress now. Now the House is going to pass a bill banning Trump from ballots nationwide. And then that will be a law on the books. And then the Supreme Court will actually have to look at it, not from a judicial perspective from the states, but actually from the legislative one, which is a much higher bar.

Right. They are going to keep raising the stakes. And the question is, at what point are they going to say, you know what? Like, this is too much even for us, evil as we are. And they have continually, I think, surprised the greater, American electorate and are losing people in the process. I mean, Joe Rogan was not, you know, on our side, so to speak, like he was, you know, three years ago, he talked very differently now.

You have people like Elon Musk. You have people like, you know, you have tons of people from across the cultural, you know, spectrum who are turning towards populism. And partially, you know, Snoop Dogg just case Snoop Dogg was holding up the cappinated head of, you know, Donald Trump four years ago and just did a tweet or whatever, an Instagram post saying, hey, he, he's. it's actually not done anything bad to me. As people are watching Trump get posterized by the blob,

and everyone who's felt persecuted by the system is starting to basically become something of an insurgent themselves with respect to the population. That resonates the criminals. Well, this is the classic issue that we have in all counterinsurgency. So the blob has these two different techniques for obliterating foreign populations when they get in our way. One of them is counterterrorism.

and say, oh, you're a terrorist group, so you're dead. But the other one is counterinsurgency, which is a little bit like broader and more insidious. And this basically says if there's a political group rising to power in a country that we want to make sure that our puppet dictator or our puppet president who's giving us the oil, who's giving us the gas, who's giving us the sugar, giving us the gold and the diamonds and the raw materials and everything, we want to make sure that person stays in power so we can continue to have that financial and political relationship. But there's a party, there's an opposition party that's running against. and we send in the counterinsurgency folks.

And their goal is to basically wipe out this opposition party politically. And the issue is, there's a struggle. You know, counterinsurgency doctrine is basically a strategic battle between legitimacy and control, which is this idea that you want to prevent the people's hearts and minds in that region from perceiving the opposition parties being legitimate. You want them to look illegitimate, totally isolated and delegitimized. But the more control, you're not. you exert over the people in that region, the more they resent your control over them,

and the more they sympathize with the party you're trying to delegitimize. And so there's this strange situation where you want to control people without looking like you're controlling with them, because every time you control people overtly, you actually create, for every person that you get to your side by doing that, you're creating 10 resentful people who were the friends and families of the people, the people who were fence-sitters until they saw it happen to their cousin. Right. Or, you know, the people who didn't care about one side of the other until, you know, they were at the wedding of their, you know, third cousins, best friends, you know, dogs babysitter and watch the drone strike, you know, take out the people at the wedding.

They're like, oh, my God. Well, now I'm on their side. Yeah, this is a scary because Trump, he's been found guilty of rape civilly, and he just been found guilty of fraud in New York. And I'm trying to wrap my head how a judge was able to do this in the United States of America because it's all seems treasonousness to me because they find him. What do you find them? $300-some million for? They said he actually committed fraud by going to the bank, getting a loan for the bank. The bank comes out to his property, values the property, gives them a loan.

He pays the loan back. A judge comes in and says, no, that appraisal that the bank did was too much. That's fraud. I'm going to sue you for $300. And it's Trump's fault. Yeah. Yeah, it's almost $500 million. They overrided a bank, a judge.

Yeah. fully paid back, no damages, but that's $500 million. And every single day, it's $100,000 of interest. Just the interest on it. So, you know, this is why I was buying pens. Right. Bying pens. The Trump International, you know.

So you said, okay, this infrastructure to attack foreign governments and to control the elections has now been turned on citizens. Yeah. What do you think is going to happen coming up with this election? I can't see through the fall. of war on this. You know, I was very confident in 2016 when I was looking at the polling data, and I was just basically extrapolating by all the, you know, all the other anecdotes, all the other little, you know, meta, you know, meta data around what was happening on the internet and, you know,

what seemed to be, you know, hugely underreported, you know, popularity. I was very confident about the 2016 election. I was not so confident about the 2020 election. I couldn't see through the fog of war then. And I can see through it even less now. I, you know, I, Every time I have thought that the blob would exercise some degree of restraint in order to preserve, if nothing else, it's diplomatic credibility to be able to use democracy as a predicate for its international operations. Every time I thought that they would be like, okay, they're just going to take the L on this one. They're just going to say, okay, listen, you got, okay, we tried to do this dirty thing to Trump. He's somehow Teflon Don survived.

God knows how. okay, Gigi on this. Now we're going to try the next point. It's like, no, no, no. They actually, they'll just keep on escalating. They've been going out to him for the last six, seven years. They haven't. Every time it was like, okay, they'll have some refractory period on this.

Like, they've got, they're going to, like, cool the jets for a minute before they escalate it into some brand new territory that in two and a half centuries, America has never, has never, you know, broken in terms of precedent. They keep doing. And, you know, there is so much time left on the clock. Right now, Trump is more ahead of. of Biden than he has ever been against anyone ever for 12 years of running for president right now. So you would think that...

You would think the deep state, like, all right, I've been losing. I'm going to get up from the blackjack table and you just take the sale, but it don't seem like they want to do that. Well, that's the thing is you can't rule out absolutely anything at this point. It's not just that Trump is winning at the national level. All seven of the battleground states, Trump is up by, like, at least three to five points according to New York Times polling. He's a rapist. he frauded people

and it's like and people are insurrections I forgot about that it's like It's got a rap sheet Yeah Yeah and his polemers are shooting through the roof

Right because nobody's believing it anymore But because of that They can no longer use The You know the traditional toolkit Of just lying about people And just you know Pumping money into these NGOs

They're having to resort more and more to prosecutors Because they're losing so bad the polls and nobody believes the press. Yeah. So, you know, this is, this is what we do in foreign countries. We control the prosecutors. If you remember that, you know, the whole scandal, the whole scandal around the Biden started with Biden

personally, you know, extorting the Ukrainian government. How's that dude not in jail? I do not get that. We have him on video extorting people. But they go out of the Trump for it. That's what I'm telling you. You're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion.

I'm going to be leaving here. I think it was, what, six hours? I looked at, I said, I'm leaving six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch. Got fired. Yeah. Well, you know the answer to this.

It's because who goes to jail is totally controlled by who controls the prosecutors. And the prosecutors and the national security and the intelligence division are the property of the blob. They are the property of the CIA and the State Department and the Pentagon, and the donor and drafter class, like the soroses, like the Browders, like the multinational corporations and the financial stakeholders and Wall Street and London, that is who controls the Justice Department, and that is who controls who goes to prison, that is controls. Who lives or dies?

You could be the world's biggest mobster. You could be the Bushes and Bidens and be responsible for 10,000 centuries of war crimes. But if you control the prosecutors, you control the prisons. And that means not just you have a license to kill for yourself, but you have a license to indict over absolutely nothing, anybody who gets in your way. And that's what we're witnessing right now. And the question is, at what point could they say, you know what, it's only four years?

There's no real clear succession plan for the Trump people. That's crazy. They can make the innocent look guilty nowadays and make the guilty look innocent. 100%. 100%. I mean, even this classified documents case, look at what just happened. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the documents that they found in Trump. The Justice Department itself had a formal ruling that Joe Biden...

Calm down, Mike. I'm cool. I'm cool. It doesn't bother me. Hey, I don't put anything past this deep state, but like this growth of AI and that movie Obama came out with the cyber attack that movie. Yeah. Do you see anything like that coming out? Has that come out yet? Or is that like this? Yeah, it's on Netflix.

It's like they're trying to warn us. Oh, my gosh. Oh, I got a lot of that. Yeah. Yeah, it's really good. Obama's behind it. Yeah, I heard. I heard.

I just haven't got a chance to see it yet. But do they have that capability? The capability has been war game for years. I mean, this is one of these things that, you know, there's, there's long been talk about that. You know, Whitney Webb has published a lot about this since I think 2019. She's been on this, I mean, she was on this beat before then, but she's talked a lot about these sort of, you know,

simulations that are done, you know, for cyber attacks and who knows, you know, but, you know, there was a lot of strangeness around the simulations before COVID, though. I'm sure you guys are familiar with the event 201. You know, I don't know if you're familiar with this, but, you know, this is... No, I'm not familiar. Oh, man, it's wild. So we still don't know the origins of COVID. I know it came from. I'm not going to say it on camera, but... We neither. Yeah, I choose life. Yeah, I choose life. But, you know, there is a strange situation where, you know, these kind of simulations do tend to have a weird knack for preceding the exact thing to happen.

Right. And you had these very strange simulations before COVID. It was called Event 201. It was an event that was jointly put together by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and the Johns Hopkins Center for International Affairs, essentially, which is a big blob, you know, link to the, academia. And, you know, it starred people like Avril Haynes, who at the time was the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Obama. She's now the head of the entire intelligence community. She's the head of the OD&I. I'm starting to notice a trend. Anybody linked to Clinton's Obama, Mitt Romney's, Bush's, they're not good people. Yeah, well, the Clintons themselves,

right? I mean, let's see, Georgetown political science to Yale Law School. And then, you know, Bill Clinton was the governor of the state of Arkansas at the time when, you know, when the CIA was running the, you know, the operations in the MENA Air Force Base there during, during Iran-Contra. I mean, there's these, all of these major families have relied on, have been instruments of statecraft for this, you know, these foreign policy, you know, dirty deeds. And there's a lot I'm not saying, you know, by the area, if you guys just look up the, the, the, the, the, The Mina connection with respect to Bill Clinton's time as first Attorney General, once again, in charge of the prosecutors, and then governor and then into the presidency.

It was basically a baton pass from the Ronald Reagan work that the CIA was doing there for Iran-Contra to the Bill Clinton era. And then, of course, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretary of State is the head of the State Department. that is the job you get promoted to if you do a good job as CIA director. You know, as Mike Pompeo went from being CIA director, the head of the State Department. The State Department, again, is the overt side of our diplomacy,

which has to constantly coordinate with the covert side of the CIA. So, you know, the dirty deeds and stuff. Yes, yes. So, you know, Trump was the great unvetted one. And so, you know, because of that, they're trying to put him back in the box. and for 2024, who the heck can know? Because the issue is, at some point, they start running into the international scandal of it all.

This is one of these things where it's like, every time you do one of these things, you now give a license to every other country in the UN to say, well, what do you mean? You're doing this for democracy. You sanctioned Iran for subjugating some opposition candidate. You just, you know, we pass sanctions on Russia when they arrested Navalny. We arrest, and Navalny is pulling it under 2% in the country.

They arrested Donald Trump while he's winning. You know, why are we not sanctioned by our own sanctions policy? I mean, these are questions that dozens of other countries around the world are asking out in the open, and it makes us look so bad, it makes it so much harder for our diplomats to negotiate in all the different multilateral forums. you know, if you're at the cyber desk. You now need to go into the International Telecommunications Union and explain that they need to not use foreign country X's, you know, IT infrastructure because that country arrests dissidents.

Oh, wait a second. That country censors the Internet. Oh, wait a second. You know, that country gags journalists. Oh, wait a second. You know, it's like one after that, that country mass arrest protesters. Oh, wait a second. It's like one after another, we run into this.

I mean, this is a huge thing at the State Department after the Stone Leaks. You know, where we were... Yeah, Assange, right? Assange and Snowden, you know, these revelations about how our own system worked allowed other countries to form formidable coalitions against our own state craft mechanisms. How did Assange get in trouble? Well, I mean, I would argue it was Vault 7 was probably the final straw. But, you know, you had a free and open Internet at the time.

And he was publishing... classified cables from the CIA and, you know, from, you know, State Department officials with, you know, top security clearances and whatnot to, you know, for the consensus building architecture that's done in the interagency. And he was publishing them out in the open. And they were, you know, they were hugely embarrassing and damaging to the blob. And so he was exposing to secrets. Yes. I mean, that was the whole thing, you know. And his, you know, he had these grand ambitions of basically, you know, unmasking because the fact is is our security clearance system is inherently anti-democratic. People don't know what they're voting for. They don't know what the state knows.

I mean, how can they decide, you know, whether to go with Trump or Nikki Haley on our policy in Syria, if we don't know what the hell we're doing in Syria because everything's classified? We don't know what we're doing in Ukraine because everything is classified. Well, that means you need to take their word for it, which means you're casting your vote in the dark. you have to trust them. Well, what if these people are not necessarily trustworthy? What if these people have a legal license, a legal obligation to lie? Maybe we should make up our own minds.

Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be? Yeah. And today's bills, when you read the headline of a bill, the Green New Deal, that's not what that bill is all about. It's about their little secrets being embedded, and the American public doesn't have any idea. Like, they came out of all these bills and you read the bill, and it's like, that's not what that bill's for.

Right. Well, it's safe to assume the, opposite until you know until you sort of go in and learn otherwise but you know with the asan situation is that was in 2017 i think when the last major leaks were done they had a big role in the 2016 election you know it was uh there was a lot of very damaging information about hillary clinton that came out during that Hillary Clinton was being backed by the CIA being back by the state department back by the pentagon being backed by the the managers of the american empire and you know there were all these leaks that created um a huge civil war

were almost on the left because one of the major major aspects of the wickleaks disclosures was what they did to bernie sanders you know the super delicate votes and the fact that bernie was rising he should have won they conspired you know they basically you know kneecap them and they you know uh deliberately and they conspired to do it and we only knew about it because of you know these these wickleaks cables and things like this and um you know so you had this you had this situation where people assumed up until 2016 that journalism was legal in the United States. It's no longer legal. It's not.

It's not journalism. If you're going to do it, you have to be chosen. The New York Times, just six days ago, published a piece that would have had anybody else thrown in jail for a thousand years if they had printed the same thing but said it, and it's a bad thing. And the CIA shouldn't be in eastern Ukraine. Shouldn't have these 12 top secret security claims, military bases. The CIA invited, these were not declassified.

It wasn't like, you know, Joe Biden said, oh, you know what, actually, we can tell all about this. They were leaked. Those leaks will not be prosecuted because they were inviting. The New York Times does not have its own proprietary CIA wing where they put on, you know, funny masks and disguises and just meander into top secret CIA basis. The level of security you need to go in for it is absolutely still. staggering. And they can publish, you know, classified

material and leak it to the press because they have a backdoor relationship to do it, and the blob perceived it was good for them. So the CIA proof reads their articles. They're the editor in chief. Well, this is what most of these Russiagate journalists literally get caught doing. We get people

like Kenelanian. Kendoan was a, you know, I think he was, what, something like, he was at the Philly Inquirer at the time, and I think, and now he said something like NBC or one of those, you know, comparable ones. And, you know, he was literally busted, submitting all of his articles that concerned the CIA to the CIA for oversight. You know, they were basically the editorial desk, which is exactly, you know, the situation we had in the 1950s to the 1970s with things like the, you know, Operation Mockingbird and whatnot. That's exactly

what you can read about was we had in this country in the 1980s and the 1990s through the CIA media task forces that are all in the CIA reading room if you want to read all about that. We're supposed to imagine it suddenly ended, you know, in the Internet age. And of course it hasn't. You know, if anything, much of my work about the censorship industry is about is about trying to educate the American public about how this, how the blog, how are, yes, how are diplomacy, defense, and intelligence superstructure took the control mechanisms they had over legacy media and the analog era.

And when the 2016 election happened here in the U.S., they freaked out and said, holy crap, we need to reinstate those same bumper cars that we had on democracy. In the 20th century, we need a digital analog for that. And that is really what catalyzed the construction of the censorship industry. We have freedom of the press in this country. But it's journalism is against the law. That is crazy. We have freedom of press, but journalists are not against the law in this country.

Yes. If you have a blob license to do it, you know, if you, then, then you have freedom of the press. But, you know, it is, the press is the fourth, is the fourth category of institutions in the censorship industry, right? As I sort of laid out at the start of this, government, private sector, civil society, and media. And this is, this is not my framing of this. This is literally the Department of Homeland Security's formal framework for their so-called whole-sciety counter-misinformation model, which is to conjoinjoint government, private sector, and civil society. in media into one cohesive, fused into the cell, the nucleus of a single cell.

That's what Operation Mockenberg is, essentially, right? Right, but the financial incentives to the media are highly aligned here. Coming into 2016, you may remember, everyone thought mainstream media was dead at that point because they were, you had anonymous accounts on Twitter who were getting more impressions. Alex Jones had more impressions on his YouTube page than the entire network of CNN. That's why he's gone. Yeah, that's why he's going. We used to have, we was getting more impressions than Fox, CNN.

On our Facebook. On our Facebook. We was around 60 to 80 million views. Some days, it was around 10, 15 million views a day. And it was around 100 million views a month. Some days it was over 100 million views than a day. We would go live and have 80,000 people watching. Yeah.

That stopped, like, instantly. It wasn't gradual. It just stopped. Just what happened. Forget the editorial, the news, but they wrote an article about a, I think it was New York Times. I might be wrong. I got to look at it.

Yeah, I'm not sure who it was, but I forget who published the article. But me and Keith was on that, Candace on that, Terence is on that. And the very next day after that article was written, views just fell off a table. Went from like 50 million views to down to like 10,000 views. Yep. Overnight. Yep.

I'm pretty sure I saw your guys' names and databases a few times. I mean, you guys were, I'm serious. Yeah. Let me look more. database. My God. So the CIA is watching us.

Well, I'm not saying, well, it's more like CIA pass-throughs, like the Stanford Air and Obser. The NGOs. Yes,

yes, yes. And I, and I, you know, I'll do a sweep for it after this and you got,

it might be, might be a funny, uh, yeah, addendum, uh, epilogue to the show. But, you know,

you guys were proxies for Trump in the eyes of the blob. Mm-hmm. Trump being in power or staying in power was meant, you know, killing,

you know, potentially, this in-process special operation to, you know, with respect to Ukraine and with respect to Eurasia and with respect to Syria and with respect to the empire. And so in order to kill, you know, the ability to have the people vote for and popularize, you know, have hearts and minds swing towards somebody who wouldn't mind's that. Election interference. They tried to take you out.

And they did that to everybody who was affected. So they did that's what they claimed Trump and Russia did. Yeah, yeah, no, literally. I mean, this is, I mean, this is one of the big scandals that I broke back in 2022 was about how this was explicitly done through, you know, before they set up the whole of government apparatus, you know, now the formal title for it is, you know, the counter misinformation framework is a whole of society, whole of government,

which is now it's like every government agency has, you know, basically a misinformation bureau, has its own sort of, whether that's funding censorship groups, whether that's pressuring, you know, for censorship on platforms, whether that's coordinating on censorship policies or whether that's creating little outsourced NGO-type structures to do it. At the time, you know, it started, the blob wanted to initially park this at the CIA

or at the State Department's Global Engagement Center. And I published all of these internal memos that these people have put together when they were doing this planning in 2017. And then, you know, they said, oh, you know, we can't do the CIA because we can't do, they wanted to do at the State Department's Global Engagement Center because that was the first censorship office

that we really had in the U.S. government, starting during the ISIS era. And they said, ah, you know, the State Department's supposed to be foreign-facing, and we really want to go after Trump tweets. They said, well, this is more of an intelligence operation. This is the sort of thing that the CIA classically does by, you know, when we go into Germany and we bribe a bunch of editors, we threaten a bunch of editors so that they don't print news media stories.

So that's crazy. We're going to need tens of thousands of people involved in this. We can't really run as a clandestine operation. Also, it's supposed to be foreign-facing. We don't really have a counterintelligence predicate. I said, well, what if we park at the FBI? They said, well, you know, actually we're really just going after people tweeting online. There's no act of law breaking, and technically the FBI is only supposed to be the intelligence arm or the Justice Department.

They said, huh, well, there's only one other domestic intelligence equity that we have in the whole U.S. government. That's the Department of Homeland Security. So technically, we could use the Department of Homeland Security to combine the foreign-facing Department of Dirty Trix of the CIA to control media with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI, and then, boom, we're going to use this to control social media. That's why he rated Trump's house. basically well you know the I mean that that's the Justice Department you know and but you know this was on the social media side but you know the two are part and parcel because they you Trump was a social media phenomenon top to bottom he didn't have a single print newspaper endorse him in 2016 not a single one and even Fox News was hotly hotly divided on it you know how they

said you know our government goes after other countries that they are threat to democracy right Trump's a threat to democracy. That's what they said. They're using the same verbiage they use for other countries. The same tactics. The same tactics for Trump and remove them from social media. Yeah. And I don't understand why the Democrat voter doesn't understand that.

Because if they're going to do it to Trump, they're going to eventually do it to you too. These people, the blob, politically, they lean left, right, Democrat. But I know there's some conservatives involved, too, like Mitt Romney. It looks like that now. What we're living through, you know, there's this line from Moby Dick. around, you know, where the sailor ishmaelie, they're trying to hunt this great white whale. And he describes how he comes from this posh, upper middle class background. But when he goes to see, he always goes as a sailor because, you know, it's basically the same as being on the captain or a cook

because the universal thump gets passed around. You know, there's actually a lot of benefits to, you know, being on one side versus another. And so I sort of think of what we're living through as being the universal thump being passed around with the blob now targeting Republicans where it used to, a faction of Republicans where it used to target the populist fact. of Democrats. So in the 20th century, the shoe was completely on the other foot where there was no real Republican sympathizers for the Marxist, socialist, communist groups that were anti-war, that were anti-empirate. And so the CIA, you know, basically curb stomping a bunch of leftist groups on college campuses. And Republicans were like, cool. I mean, there was very little debate

on the Republican side about the abuses that were happening from the blob trying to stymie the War left. We're now living through the opposite side of this, where that same apparatus for the exact same reason is now targeting the populist right, and there is no real populist left anymore. You could argue like the RFK faction is, but it is just a burning ember of what once was, even during the Bush era, a somewhat robust anti-war left. That basically ended with Occupy Wall Street, and then the anti-war left got dissolved into a bunch of internal identity politics and swallowed hole by that. And never again was seen.

I mean, you could argue it was seen in 2016 with the Bernie Sanders movement. Bernie Sanders was running on one of the reasons that they hated Bernie Sanders, the blob. And they tried to call him a Russian pawn was because he was running. They did. They did. Oh, the same tactic. Oh, and he folded up like a lawn chair real fast.

You know, yes, sir. Now he's, now he's, you know, Mr. Joe Biden, not even thinking of running, you know. But at the time he was saying, we're going to, we're going to scale back our involvement in NATO. We're going to scale back all our foreign militarism. And what Trump wanted to do. Yeah, but from his perspective, it was from the socialist side because we want free student tuition. We want affordable housing.

We want free universal health care. Where is that money going to come from? Where most of our budget is spent on the Pentagon and the State Department of the intelligence services. So the blob is like, well, shit, we have a very special set of skills for taking out leftist socialists candidates who haven't undermined the money coming into the blob. So they went for him.

And, you know, once he folded up, and, you know, there has not been, you know, anyone really on the left that's being able to galvanize a coalition to rival them. And so it's left now a GOP civil war between the foreign policy establishment blob Republicans and the sort of mega populist nationalist Republicans versus a total, you know, solidified phalanx on the Democrat Party, which is basically what the world was in 19, you know, 72 on the other side where you had Republicans under Nixon were all, you know, all basically one monoparty with respect to, you know, the, you know, the American Empire and both, you know, aligned totally on domestic and part. And then you had a civil war on the left between the sort of limousine, liberal, you know, New York, you know, neoliberal capitalist crowd and a civil war with a sort of liberal but progressive Marxist socialist crowd. And then you had the blood. And then you had The blob basically pick the winners and losers of that left-wing civil war.

And that's what's happening right now. They are prosecuting the MAGA populist right, and they are pumping up with money and with positive press, you know, the foreign policy side of the populist right. When you refer to the blob, that's pretty basically a deep state, right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, so I try to make it, you know, accountable analytically by confining it on the government side to the State Department, the Defense Department, and the intelligence community, and then the other aspects of the government like the FBI, DHS, and Justice

Department's National Security Divisions, National Security State. And then that's sort of the inner ring of the blob with respect to the government. And then there's the greater blob, which is the donor and drafter class, which are the multinational corporations, the financial investors and sort of the high net worth individuals and families who are, I refer to them as the donor drafter class because these are the people and institutions and corporations that draft off of the activity of the battering ram of the blob. So, you know, this blob, it's, you know, it comes from that 1950s movie where it's invincible,

it swallows everything, you know. She gave me nightmares as a kid. It eats you alive. And so when we have all of these corporations, most of our corporations, all of our major corporations are multinational corporations, for them to be able to, you know, maintain the profit margins that they,

they do, they require Big Daddy blob to protect them on every plot of dirt outside U.S. soil. That means in Europe. They need the State Department to crack down on Europe if Europe wants to pass laws that might undermine their profits. That means, you know, if someone in the Middle East or North Africa or Southeast Asia or Latin America is going to nationalize a, you know, a company, you know, an Exxon type company, or they're going to build a canal that's going to totally change, you know, the trade routes there. We need Big Daddy Blobs guns to go in there and say, you're not going to do that, or you're going to have political instability

in the form of, you know, CIA-funded paramilitary proxy groups, you know, coming in and taking over the region. So all of these, you know, I've heard of it is the drafter class there because it's like a bike race, right? Where you have, you know, in a bike race, the best strategy is to not be out in front the whole time because the person in front cuts the wind for everyone behind them. American corporations and Wall Street and London investors,

draft behind the Pentagon. They draft behind the State Department. They draft behind the CIA as it cuts the wind for them. And this is where you make your money in government. You don't become a millionaire working at the CIA. Right. Become a millionaire working for the CIA because of the favors you do for the donor drafter class

that you get revolving door into and out of as you cycle between government and the private sector. Backdoor deals. So Eric explains a lot of the money going to Ukraine. and all these other entities. All that money is going. And that's just a microcosm what's happening with the Biden family. Because how was Hunter able to get all these deals in foreign countries?

He has no ability, no knowledge, no education in those fields. Yep, that's exactly right. Because there's more money there in the aggregate than there is in the U.S. And it's all there for the taking, especially if you've got the support of all these institutions. Because you're not just going on your own. You're being supported by a surround sound of media that's propping up your business enterprise there because it's all being piped in by state department and nobody talks about it the whole hunter-biden thing and gets squashed well yeah I mean but you know part of the issue is is it's

very delicate you know it's yeah you're going to jail if you tell the story that's right journalism is dead yeah you have to have the CIA's permission to write the story yeah and again even if you work for the FBI you're not safe for this they just like I said they just arrested the FBI agent and the FBI informant you know who are who are testifying or overseeing this you know this you can't even tell the truth they've made into a crime you can't it's fucking crazy um we're fucked y'all won't a 250 we got you at 250 we have 250 6.7 liters power stroke 37 mix times 20x rim that truck is hung like a horse 37 minutes go to fish of horse 2 s dot

car anything you buy from the site that you automatically enter the wind no purchase necessary boardware prohibited see of this rules for detail. Yeah. So what that said, with this emergence of AI and your knowledge and you an expert in this, do you feel worried or? Yeah, you know, I mean, I try to put on a happy face, but of course, you know, this is, it's existential.

We're living through truly historic times where how these things are decided in the next several years are going to determine the fate of the next several centuries. We have already overturned two and a half centuries of precedent, just with the indictment of Trump alone, let alone the creation of, when DHS created SISA, the censorship agency, that was the first time in two and a half centuries. We had a formal permanent domestic censorship bureau within the United States federal government. And that was done without anyone even blinking an eye.

These are the sorts of structures that set down roots throughout and infect all of society. And it's easier to pull them out from those roots in the beginning before they're really consolidated. But you know, nowadays we've got AI approaching being developed. That's going to be used to as a mechanism to weaponize freedom of speech against American people. Well, that's exactly right. Well, this is how I entered the picture. Before I even understood censorship as an industry, it was the AI world that sucked me into this.

And I just want to stress that AI censorship is not a future threat. It is here. It has been here. It is the whole reason that you can get nuked from, you know, from 80,000 live viewers down to nothing is because of, you know, I call them weapons of mass deletion. These are, you know, what used to require tens of thousands of human moderators to whack a mole, sensor everything as it comes up, which means it already needs to sort of go viral before it comes to the attention of flaggers or goes through this manual review process. When AI censorship technology was rolled out after the 2016 election, funded by DARPA, funded by the, funded by the. the blob's R&D apparatus, it was the total game changer for the ability

to kill speech on the internet. It has been here for eight years now, and it completely changed the rules of the road for how speech works online. 99% of all speech violations on the internet, on Twitter, on Facebook, on YouTube. Well, I don't know about Twitter right now is sort of in flux, but this was the case.

We're all pre-flagged by these weapons of mass deletion, by these AI censorship superweapons, using this technique called Natural Land, language processing. It's a machine learning technique that allows you to basically look at any narrative that you want to target. Vaccine skepticism. Skepticism about mail-in ballots. Skepticism about climate change, being on one side of the other of immigration or abortion. What allows you to do is take huge databases of keywords and key influencers and just develop a corpus. So what they do is they ingest kind of like a, like a giant hippo. It just ingest

hundreds of millions of tweets. So for example, in the 2020 election, there was this group called EIP, the election integrity partnership. They were partnered with DHS. They were the designated disinformation flaggers. And they ingested something like 860 million tweets and then, you know, develop these models around people who are skeptical of mail-in ballots. And so they had all these keywords. You know, if you used phrases like election fraud, you know, election, you know, ballot trafficking, ballot harvesting, they would have teams of so-called researchers, operatives in place.

Algorithms, tags. Yeah, they would track emerging narratives, you know, ballots found in, you know, in dumpster in Michigan. Okay, now that gets folded into the, you know, to this corpus, and you get, basically refine these models over time. And you draw a topographical network map.

You may have seen some of these, you know, where it'll have nodes and then links between nodes. So say, okay, James O'Keefe, one million followers, and he connects to, you know, Hodge twins here, and he connects to Roger Stone here, and he connects to Donald Trump Jr. here. And so the narrative spread like this, and so they can say, okay, this narrative is, you know, is confined to this misinformation community. And then they have all these techniques that they've developed for being able to censor those in myriad ways.

So, for example, one of the things I found very deeply troubling was, like the DARPA research on the science of censorship. So one paper that I referenced fairly frequently was a DARPA proposal for four different techniques that can be used to minimize the martyr effect. Because when they first started doing this in 2017, 2018, there was a lot of blowback because people would watch like a high profile individual, like an Alex Jones get censored. And there would be just totally huge amounts of news cycles and then tons of cross-platform traffic to Alex Jones's website and such because he would look like a martyr. So we need to stop the martyr effect. So what if we refine these AI models so that, you know, we refine these AI models so that, they don't just go after like the top, you know, perpetrator of a misinformation narrative.

What if we do bottom up? What if we actually leave the high profile individuals nominally there, but we kill the accounts of their lieutenant class, their top amplifiers? Okay, well, what if, you know, what if we spice that in so that we go for not the number one or the number two class, but we look at the sort of huge network of lower people who don't have their own platform, who aren't household names? And we do, and we censor, you know, some proportion of them, or we randomize. it. And so that nobody can say, oh, these people are being censored because if they're being censored, why is this person still have an account?

This is the U.S. military funding domestic censorship science proposals for how best to censor conservatives without looking like they're censoring conservatives. This is a Pentagon military operation to kill the political proxies on social

media for the candidate they don't want to win the next presidency. Now, these people are doing it. They're not running rogue. Somebody had to sign off on this. right? Yeah, they're getting, this is how they make their money. These are they are earning their income through these government grants. And so

they will have program directors. You know, these will, you know, for example, the National Science Foundation has two big, has two big programs for this for domestic censorship. One of them is called the convergence accelerator track F program. This is, this is great. Yeah, yeah, you never know

to... How do you remember all these shit? I live in this world. Right. I am the, you know, I'm a little sand shark at the bottom of the ocean just, you know, just whales passing by, and I'm just eating their nibbles all day, basically.

But, you know, the convergence accelerator track F program, when I first started talking about this, everyone was like, Benz, come on, I get you at the FBI, I get you at the CIA, not the National Science Foundation. You know, leave us something for the upward trajectory of mankind, and it's like, no, because it's about the science of censorship.

So the convergence accelerator track F program was set up by the Trump administration in February 2019 to solve whole of society issues that required multidisciplinary. You know, so the first program was about, you know, funding the science of quantum technology. So you have the physicists, have to talk to the chemists, have to talk to the rocket engineers, have to, you know, there are 12 different fields of study that all go into this. And so they wanted to, you know, converge all these different fields, you know, science

specialties to accelerate, you know, a high impact, you know, field of scientific research. So that was track F, track A. Trump does five of these things. Biden administration gets in January 2021, they say, well, you know what? The next one we're going to do is actually going to be called Track F, and it's going to be for the science of censorship

because social media misinformation is a problem that requires the computers, the computer scientists, to work with the software engineers, to work with the linguistics experts, to work with the social science experts, to work with the extremist researcher trackers. And so they funded $40 million

worth of AI censorship technology development just in the National Science Foundation's Track F program to fund dozens of different university centers and private censorship mercenary groups to build fast, precise, and comprehensive AI tracking of anybody who expressed, you know, skepticism of COVID-19, of anybody who was, you know, a Trump supporter or questioned the 2020 election, if anybody questioned climate change, anybody who had issues about immigration and things like this. And, you know, so that was, you know, another national national National Science Foundation program for AI censorship superweapons was something called the securing trust in cyberspace program. Now this is another one of these things where it's,

you look at that, you're like, how the hell are they going to squeeze tens of millions of dollars worth of censorship for things? It's something called securing trust in cyberspace. And what they say is, you know, the main issue with misinformation is it undermines trust in democratic institutions. Now this is, remember earlier in this, I said they have redefined democracy from the French Revolution, the 1780s to present, to 2016, democracy always made a consensus

to the individuals, how people vote. But after 2016, they said, oh, that's not working out for us because people are not buying our shit anymore. So it's about the consensus of institutions because that's really a democratic process, don't you see? I mean, getting the State Department to agree

at the DOD, to agree with the CIA, to agree with the World Economic Forum, to agree with the Atlantic Council, to agree with the Exxon Mobil Corporation, to agree with the George Soros. That's a democratic, that's a tough democratic institutional process. If at the end of that, a bunch of people think that a cab driver,

you know, Edge Lord posting on Twitter is funny. And that kills, you know, years of our democratic institutional consensus building. So, you know, the funny thing is, is they defined, you know, democracy as being not about democratic individuals, you know, the democracy means, but about democratic institutions. So if you, this is the great phrasing that DHS and NSF and the Pentagon, the State Department all converged on, which is that it is a threat to democracy if you undermine public faith or confidence in democratic institutions.

Now, what does that mean? Democratic institutions include things like the mainstream media. The mainstream media are considered by the National Science Foundation under the TRACF program and under the securing trust and cyberspace program as being a Democrat institution, which means if you undermine public faith in the New York Times, the government is considering you a threat to democracy and is funding 60, some odd censorship mercenary groups to stop you from undermining the perceived legitimacy of the New York Times. So, you know, one example of this, there was a program called Course Correct, which is $5.5 million

to the University of Michigan and a bunch of these censorship technology developers to build a dynamic digital dashboard of people on Twitter and people on Facebook to create these real-time heat maps, these, you know, these topographical network maps, of people who undermine faith in media. And then... They have hot maps? So that's, yes, yes, it's funded by that got $5.5 million in funding. Just for that one thing alone. And this is all, by the way, on my Twitter, my ex, at Mike Ben Cyber, just run a, just put in NSF or put in track F or put in course correct.

You'll see all this. I have all their videos. You're watching us from satellites. Well, this is more like they're analyzing you with, they have teams of computer software engineers, of computational data scientists and of, you know, so-called researchers who, who, you know, most of whom are former CIA analysts, frankly. When you look into it, it's kind of, there's, oh, they all have foreign policy backgrounds. And they are being paid, you know, just this one program alone, and there's 60 plus of these, just created in the past two years, you know, to build these dynamic digital dashboards of people

who undermine faith in mainstream media. And then they provide that heat map to the media organizations and to the fact-checker alliances so that they can then pressure the tech companies. It's a laundering apparatus where the government is providing the money. The technology is being provided, is being created by the civil society institution. The civil society institution is providing essentially a CIA dossier on everybody who's undermining faith in the CIA intermediate media. They are then putting pressure on the tech companies or creating machine-readable scripts so they can just be slotted into the algorithm at Facebook. And so you have all four quadrants of this whole society working in unison so that you don't get, don't go viral on, on YouTube.

Wow. So they're doing all this because people on YouTube, we have a lot of independences getting more, garnering more, way more views than legacy media. Right. And because of that, it allows you to vote for a foreign policy or vote for the spending of your own tax dollars in a way that undermines the perceived self-interest of the blob. And so this is a population management technique that we are now living under the thumb of. And, you know, it's not just us. You know, one of the crazy things about this, you know, I mentioned the National Now for Democracy is this major CIA cut out.

And the State Department, when these AI censorship techniques started to be, you know, developed by the Pentagon and rolled out, you know, to the Internet, it's now become like this panacea. You know, the, I don't think you could tell me a country on planet Earth, you know, outside the continent of Antarctica, where if you tell me that country, I can't find you some CIA pass-through money going into these AI censorship weapons being used to control their elections. Because it basically solves the main issue that our statecraft mechanisms had in the 20th century.

We've always used propaganda. And I actually, you know, I hate that I might get clipped for saying this. But propaganda is not necessarily, I do sort of, As much as I disagree with Rick Stangle and these sort of blob monsters who said this, the fact is being able to get America's message out to the world is very important. Soft power influence over regions is important. We do, you know, if you do have some company operating in a foreign country and some foreign government just say, hey, we're nationalizing that now, we do need to be able to protect,

I think, you know, our U.S. national champions where they get abused by foreign governments. And so we've had this technique from the 20th century around propaganda that the CIA has been tasked with in the State Department funds. These are things like Voice of America, Radio for Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia. These were all CIA proprietories, as well as our Wisner's Whirletser network of 800-some media networks, the State Department could turn on and off. But that was to be able to turn up our own propaganda. We could get stories killed by bribing or extorting or extorting, threatening, you know, editors' desks at major magazines in France or Germany.

But we never had the ability to go into Tanzania, you know, where there might be, you know, billions of dollars of precious metals or hydrocarbon assets on the line. And some opposition party, some nationalist party is running for office there, you know, to control the executive branch of that country. And they're running on, you know, make Tanzania great again. And so we're going to make sure that all of these raw materials are enjoyed by Tanzanians and not by, you know, foreign direct investors from 10,000 miles away. And so now we have an ability which never existed before the rise of these weapons of mass deletion,

which is we can basically, I mean, we can basically go into the dinner table conversations of every country in that, in that territory. And without having to win by turning up our own propaganda, in which case people might not believe it, so you can still lose, turn down them to zero so that we win by default. Instead of having to win a propaganda war, you win a war by default because you're the only one who's allowed to have a voice. Everybody else, you know, these countries all run on social media to galvanize this. They don't really have robust, you know, domestic media. And to the extent they do, it's usually state department-funded media being piped in, you know, like just like we did in Ukraine with 50-some-odd, you know, state department funded NGOs and independent media companies who all are being subsidized by U.S. aid, you know, in order to create that.

surround sound to control hearts and minds. So you know what? Now I understand why Turkle Carlson was let go. Because it's only don't on you. He's the most popular journalists in America. He was getting views. I was like, why on earth would Fox News get away let go Turkle Carlson? Does it make no sense?

He's not only the most popular journalists in America, the world. Yeah, he broke all the cable news records, too. He was getting something like three and a half times. the viewership of the CNN slot opposite him. I mean, he was Dominion. And it wasn't by coincidence either. That happened right after he explodes January 6th from a different point of view. Yeah, and also he was...

I guess the CIA didn't sign off on his story yet. I don't have any, you know, I'm as much, you know, I know as much about that as you guys do, but it's, it is awfully... You can't trust anybody, Fox CNN. Everybody's in bed with these people. Well, the Fox News Empire. under Rupert Murdoch was rolled up in the Reagan effort when they were creating the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983.

You can look all this up, and the Rupert Murdoch Enterprise in Australia, in the UK, around the world was one of these sort of media networks that was rolled up in this National Endowment for Democracy effort. So, you know, there is a long history. That's would come in the 1990s, you know, essentially the, I don't think Fox News was even around until something like 1996, but the Murdoch Empire was around long before that.

And that was, you know, they were working with that sort of Republican side of the CIA, that International Republican Institute lineage that John McCain and Mitt Romney, you know, came from. Wow. So it's been an eye-open experience. Pretty much we're surrounded by evil. People with their own inches before they put the American people. It's not what people actually think it is. anymore. Yeah, but you know, part of the reason that I try to stay as upbeat and cherubic as possible

is because I think the only way out of this is at some point, you know, we are going to need people within the blob to come forward and there has to be a breaking of that, of that unanimous consensus within it. Yeah, yeah, and just cleavages is enough, you know, people, there is robust debate within the blob about certain aspects of it, you know, should we regime change, Nicaragua, or should we just destabilize it? Actually, maybe we can turn them into Alice. I mean, these happen all the time around the world, region by region, industry by industry. And this question about the tolerance of populism is something that's very new.

Because there's never been a situation in this country other than a brief moment in the 1970s on the left wing side, where there has been this kind of. But the fact is, in the end, the populist left sort of did win the Vietnam issue. Now, it took 15 years. and, you know, there's, there was about six or seven years of relative, you know, hands off of the intel agencies, or, you know, after the church committee hearings where there was, there was less of this sort of dramatic persecution, you could argue, although maybe you could argue against that. There is, there is a constant negotiation with those power structures, but the issue is, you know, we need to win them over. And so I understand people's, you know, livid, angry,

because I went through that myself for years and years and years. But I feel like my personal role in this is to try to be as much of an ambassador as I can to that world and, you know, to be able to sort of say, hey, it's not good for us. How are we going to negotiate, you know, in a world where our whole value at against China was that you're not going to get arrested if you do business here. You know, we have a court system where they don't. All these things are going out the window right now. And, you know, I've seen the blowback that that causes.

And so there's a whole new sort of model for seeing the world that I think is part and parcel of understanding this. And that's kind of my mission to popularize as I see it. Yeah. Where can people find, you get educated more about what's going on in our country and all over the world? Yeah, so definitely X. You know, Twitter is the best place. I'm hyperactive on there. I probably post 30 times a day.

It's at Mike Ben's Cyber, all one word, at Mike Ben's Cyber. And my foundation is Foundation for Freedom Online. It's Foundation for Freedom Online.com. We do deep dive, explosive investigative exposés on all elements of the censorship industry. So I love your guys' work, and thank you so much for having me here today. Thanks for joining us. That's bizarre. Your organization's Foundation for Freedom in America.

We need that. I would think you would need some shit like this in Russia. but not America. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Mike. Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Matt.