THE REAL REASON FOR CENSORSHIP IN 2024 - Part 1
The Goal is Full Spectrum Globalist Domination
What’s really happening with Telegram…?
(Tucker opens with a promotion for his first Cross Country Live Tour, then the interview begins.)
Once again, we’re back to help you take it all in. The amount of information shared in this interview is just too overwhelming to absorb in one sitting. So, again, here it is in writing, to be able to mull it all over — slowly — and let it all sink in, shocking bit by shocking bit.
Duct tape is suggested, as you head just may well explode.
Here we go!
TUCKER: 1.21
So, this feels like — you know, there are a lot of arrests in the last few years, including a number of people I know — you know — got arrested for political reasons.
But, the jailing of the founder and owner of Telegram feels like a pivot point — it feels like a moment in history, and probably a harbinger of the next few years or decades — I hope I’m wrong…
Um, so the question is like what is this, how did this happen — France arrests him on a fuel stop — he’s a French citizen, by the way, but he lives in Dubai — um, arrests him — that’s a big step, very hard for a bystander without direct knowledge, being me, to believe that Macron could or would have done that without the encouragement, or at least agreement of the Biden Administration.
You were the first person I thought of — got you here as fast as we could — so, I’m going to just stand back, and I would very much like to hear you explain what you think happened in this arrest — how it happened, and what it means, who was involved?
MIKE: 2.23
Well, we don’t know yet, and part of what I’ve been talking about, which is the suspected role of the U.S. Embassy in the arrest — or, as you put it, I think perfectly — we don’t know if it was participation, or approval, or nothing, and I’ll play devil’s advocate against my own argument here, but I feel compelled to make this argument, because, we’re not getting the answer from the Congress, who should be getting it for us, which is to say that, an entity like the House Foreign Affairs Committee, if it was committed to free speech, would be interrogating whether or not there was a U.S. Embassy back channel to French law enforcement, or french intelligence, or the French government, in terms of doing this, because this is a pattern of practice that the U.S. Embassy has pursued all over the world, and particularly in Europe, through, you know, brands, branding like anti-corruption or whatnot, you know, this is something — you know, even dating back to Norm Eisen when he was the Ambassador to the Czech Republic, you know, championing these sort-of anti-corruption reforms, from the Czech government to arrest the, you know, the politicians who have essentially opposed the State Department agenda there. This is very common, if you go to places like the Journal of Democracy, which is the academic journal for the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a very — probably the most notorious CIA cutout in the whole arsenal.
They have whole academic journals on how to push the Poland government to arrest the politicians from the PiS Party, from the Law and Order Party, especially in the judicial system…
TUCKER: 3.55
To arrest them!?
MIKE: 4.00
Yes. Yes, to mass-arrest the…we have a concept in American Statecraft called “Transitional Justice”, which is this idea that, essentially after the U.S. overthrows a country, we arrest all of the opposition politicians, opposition judges, opposition journalists, propaganda spreaders, in order to stop the reemergence of “threats to democracy”…
TUCKER: 4.23
(Tucker bursts out laughing.)
MIKE: 4.24
No, I’m not joking.
TUCKER: 4.24
You make it a one-party state, so it can be a democracy.
MIKE: 4.27
Right. Well, this is…
TUCKER: 4.27
Is this China pushing this, or the United States, just to be clear?
MIKE: 4.30
The United States. This is the United States, and we do that to “stabilize” the Democratic institutions and effectively make it cheaper for the United States to manage, because you don’t need to manage the constant recurring threat of the party you just vanquished.
So, this is…this was something that the U.S. State Department was spearheading years before Trump got into office, and it was so effective that these same cast of characters are back for Trump. Norm Eisen was the one who spearheaded the impeachment — he drafted articles of impeachment before Trump was even took the oath of office, and also led the — you know — elements of the 2019 Ukraine impeachment, the law-fare that’s currently being done with the 90+ felonies against Trump —
So, this is an instrument of statecraft, the use of prosecutions in order to bring leverage against — and to get rid of pesky people, who oppose the State Department’s priorities (i.e. globalism).
But, in the specific case of Telegram, there’s a lot going on, here…
TUCKER: 5.30
Let’s ask you to pause really quick…
We could know a lot more about the Biden administration’s involvement through the U.S. Embassy in Paris if a single House Committee, controlled by Republicans, would just jump on it — I think that’s what you said earlier.
MIKE: 5.46
Yes. Yes, absolutely. And, the problem is, our Congress is not sticking up for us, as this is happening all over the world.
Just this year, you have the drama around Brazil — has been a huge issue for Elon Musk and X — and, the House held a hearing on it, and then the House Foreign Affairs Committee — the title of the hearing was Brazil: A Crisis of Democracy, Rule of Law and Governance?
But, they did not interrogate the U.S. State Department’s role in censorship in Brazil. It was actually the U.S. State Department who capacity built, spending tens of millions of dollars — the entire censorship ecosystem in Brazil — they spent tens of millions of dollars, paying Brazilian journalists, Brazilian censors, Brazilian fact checkers, even members of the legal scholarship associated with Brazil’s censorship court, and effectively pressured, through that NGO soft power swarm, Brazil to set up the entire censorship architecture it now has. They set that up…
TUCKER: 6.50
Why would the U.S. government, which represents the U.S. Constitution (ostensibly) and democracy be trying to end demo — you can’t have democracy with censorship of…by definition, so why would we be trying to end democracy in country after country — like, what is the point of that?
MIKE: 7.06
Well, this is one of the great ironies of American statecraft in the post 2016 era.
Free speech has been an instrument of statecraft since — for U.S. diplomacy, military and intelligence purposes — since the 1940s.
Free speech around the world has been something we’ve championed, in part because we believe it, but in part, in large part I should note, because this is how you can capacity build resistance movements, or political movements, or paramilitary movements, in countries that the U.S. State Department seeks to attain political control over. If there’s no free speech, then there’s no political movement that you can capacity build to regime change the government, or to maintain elements of control over the existing government.
And so, this is why the State Department capacity built all these NGOs — the USA does it, as well — like Freedom House, and the whole wing of, for example the 26 NGOs who condemned Russia for attempting to ban Telegram in 2018.
And, why would 26 U.S. government funded NGOs all say that Russia was attacking free speech in Russia by threatening to block Telegram? Well, it was because the U.S. State Department was using Telegram through the power of its encrypted chat and all the functionality, and the fact that so much of Russia was using it to foment protests and riots within Russia, just as they did in Belarus, just as they did in Iran, just as they did in Hong Kong, just as they attempted to do in China.
So, Telegram is this very, very powerful vehicle for the U.S. State Department to be able to mobilize protests, to be able to galvanize political support against authoritarian countries.
This is why the U.S. government loved Telegram so much from 2014 to 2020, because it was this powerful way to evade state control over media, or state surveillance over private chats, because of the private functions, anonymous forwarding, all these unique features of Telegram allow it to have U.S. funded political groups, or political dissidents get tens of thousands of people to their cause with relative impunity. It’s effectively unstoppable by a regime like Lukashenko in the summer of 2020, when the U.S. government was — you know, effectively orchestrating a color revolution in Belarus — let me just take a sip for a second (takes a drink of water) — Telegram was the main channel for that.
The National Endowment for Democracy was actually paying the main administrators of the Telegram channels, who were orchestrating those riots, those, protests…
TUCKER: 9.48
Not…not employees of Telegram…
MIKE: 9.50
…by Channel Administrators…
TUCKER: 9.53
…the people…ok, so people are using it, or organizing others to use it…
MIKE: 9.56
Right…right — you know, you would get a Telegram channel with, you know, a million people in it, and the administrator of it would be on National Endowment for Democracy payroll, and the National Endowment for Democracy — you know, even the head of it — which is..it’s a CIA cutout. It was basically created when, you know, in a letter from the CIA Director, William Casey in 1983, as a means for the CIA to get control, ah, get functions back that it had lost after the scandal of the Church Committee hearing in 1975, 1976.
The Reagan administration wanted to get back the powers that the Democrats in the late 1970s considered to be human rights abuses, and too much cloak and dagger stuff, so they put it under the banner of the National Endowment for Democracy, as a public-facing NGO, with the CIA back channel.
Again, the CIA called for this, and the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy even openly say that they do now what the CIA used to do.
But, they have a — it was literally scrubbed from the legislative, ah, from the original bill that the CIA would not coordinate it.
I mean, this is one of the most prolific CIA cutouts in the arsenal, and they were the ones paying the Telegram channel administrators who were organizing these, you know, the attempt to overthrow the Belarusian government.
And, I’m not even weighing in on, you know, the normative question about whether or not that’s a good or bad thing.
TUCKER: 11.25
I will, it’s terrible!
MIKE: 11.26
All I care about about is freedom of speech on the internet.
But, what people have to understand – and this is the point I’ve been screaming into the wind for eight years, now – is that internet censorship is not some domestic event, done by domestic actors, intermediated by a domestic government and domestic tech platform policies.
Internet censorship came to the United States, and has been exported around the world, because free speech is a casualty of a proxy war of The Blob against populism.
And, what I mean by The Blob is our foreign policy establishment, which is primarily concentrated within the U.S. State Department, the U.S. intelligence services like the CIA, the Pentagon, USAID, and the soft power swarm army (think Antifa-type swarms), that we have through our NGOs, and State Department, CIA, USAID funded Civil Society institutions.
And, what happened was, we’ve had this long range plan to seize Eurasia.
Russia has $75 trillion dollars worth of natural resources in it. The United States only has $45 trillion, I mean, just to put in perspective how bountiful, you know, the region that we’re so preoccupied with is.
And, if you recall, no less than Lindsey Graham, frustrated at the lack of Republican political support for Ukraine aid, finally implored — sort of took the mask off a few months ago and said, Listen, even if you don’t believe in democracy, Ukraine’s got $14 trillion dollars worth of natural resources, so even if it’s just for cynical, self-serving purposes, the U.S. should support the war in Ukraine in order to control $14 trillion dollars worth of mineral wealth, and oil and gas wealth.
And, this is the story of Eurasia. After 1990, the U.S, the U.K. and partners in NATO set on a quest to take political control over the territories of the former Soviet Union. And, were very successful until Vladimir Putin rose to power and began to assert energy diplomacy as a means for Russia to reassert political influence over Central and Eastern Europe.
This is one of the reasons that the Nord Stream pipeline was, you know, the absolute ire of The Blob, of our foreign policy establishment, because those financial inter-linkages to Europe were allowing Russian influence over its politics, over its economy, fostering diplomatic ties – all these things which are flying in the face of this long-range plan to seize Eurasia.
And so, you know, with the Nord Stream case, you had sanctions on it prior to it being blown up. You know, it came out in essentially leaked documents from something called The Integrity Initiative (oh, brother…) that the U.K. foreign office had been, you know, basically orchestrating PR campaigns to get the Nord Stream killed in 2015.
And so, it being blown up is no surprise.
But understand, it’s because of Russia’s energy diplomacy with Europe, which is what gave rise to this whole need to kill Russia’s energy connections. And let — if I can —just flush this out a little bit…
If you can get rid of Russian energy relations with Europe — this was what the theory was — then you bankrupt Russia, you also strip them of their military-industrial complex.
Russia is the military enemy of the United States, not just in Europe now, but if you recall, the Obama administration tried to invade Syria, and the only reason they were unable to do so is because Russia militarily backstopped the Assad government, and it’s the same thing in Africa.
You know, Africa is one-third of the world’s natural resource wealth. There’s a mad scramble for the natural resources in Africa. And, Russia is the bane of both U.S. and French military forces there. If you can bankrupt Russia through…uh…getting…you know, taking out Gazprom and its oil exports, then you get rid of Russia’s ability to be an arms supplier to the rebel groups there.
Now, getting back to the Telegram case…
END. /