THE REAL REASON FOR CENSORSHIP IN 2024 - Part 5
When the Fourth Estate, the Media, Becomes the Fifth Column, That Group of People Who Undermine a Nation From Within, Either by Overt or Covert Measures, in Favor of an Enemy, Such as the Globalists.
What’s really happening with Telegram…?
We’ll begin where we left off in Part 4…
MIKE: 57.44
Well, this is the actual crux of our counterinsurgency paradox, which is that we have two things that we do for political control in a region: one of them is counter-terrorism – the military sets in on a country if we say there’s terrorists there, but if there’s no counter-terrorism, we still have a doctrine called counterinsurgency, which is ‘managing’ the rise of opposition political parties in a country, and using potentially, sometimes kinetic, or hard power, or drone striking people…
TUCKER: 58.16
Kinetic meaning violence…
MIKE: 58.18
Yes. Yes. And, the problem with counterinsurgency doctrine is, a critical component of the country does not believe the government – the U.S. installed government – is legitimate, so they are organizing a political movement to rise to power instead. We call that a political insurgency. And, the issue is, is we want to get them stabilized, we want to make them have nothing and be happy.
When people have grievances, this is what gives rise to this whole insurgent problem. But the problem is – in counterinsurgency is, in order to get legitimacy in the government, you need to take out the insurgents, but every time you take out an insurgent, you create ten new ones, because all the bystanders who didn’t have a dog in the fight, who maybe believed what the U.S. government propaganda was saying, just saw their cousin taken out at the wedding and said…
…so this is the problem – so this is also where the whole of society framework comes from. The whole of society framework comes from COIN, it comes from counterintelligence. We have a doctrine within counterinsurgency called Whole-of-government / Whole-of -society (WoG and WoS), which means every agency within the U.S. government and then every institution in society – coming back to this watchword ‘institution’, because this is the watchword of sensor-speak. This is where we’re propping up our institutions and censoring anyone who opposes the consensus of institutions. (That’s just downright diabolical, not to mention unconstitutional.)
But, this whole society framework is how you stop the counterinsurgency paradox, which is that you take one out, you create ten new ones. If the pressure is coming not just from the U.S. military, it’s coming from how you get a job in the country, so we on-board the private sector companies, they’ll work either through formal partnership with the State Department, or Pentagon, or they’ll be funded, or it’ll be informal, or it’ll be back channeled through something like the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is the Chamber of Commerce arm of the National Endowment for Democracy.
So we get the private sector companies, we get the universities, the NGOs (non-governmental organizations), the activists, we get all the cultural figures involved in the counterinsurgency effort, and we get the media involved in it.
This is where the censorship architecture was – this is what they agreed on, they literally borrowed it from the military doctrine to solve exactly this physiological response that you’re articulating right now.
But, getting back to this issue around the State Department and Telegram.
It is my contention that there’s no way the French government would have done something so absolutely seismic in terms of its implications for the U.S. military, for U.S. intelligence, and the U.S. State Department without walking next door, down the Champs-Elysee, and telling the U.S. Embassy in France that they were going to do this.
They had an ongoing investigation – criminal investigation – into Pavel, before this event took place. Macron even Tweeted that this was part of an ongoing investigation.
It is stock common practice for the U.S. Embassy – as we discussed in the Czech Republic and Poland – it is stock common practice for the U.S. Embassy in a region to coordinate, to be notified, to be essentially a stakeholder in that country’s conversations about whether or not prosecutions in the name of anti-corruption – in the name of anything – will be done, because the State Department, effectively, has a soft veto power.
I mean, you can remember — getting back to prosecutions and control of the prosecutors — this was a major scandal with Joe Biden. Joe Biden personally threatened the government of Ukraine – he said this at a Council on Foreign Relations committee, if folks recall…
TUCKER: 1.02.03
Famous tape…
“Well, son-of-a-bitch…” ~ Joe Biden
MIKE: 1.02.04
A billion dollars
A billion dollars – either you get rid of your prosecutor, or you lose a billion dollars in critical U.S. aid to the region, and, by golly, they fired the prosecutor (who was investigating Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian oil and gas interests, by the way…).
Control over the prosecutors is control over the politics.
So, the U.S. Embassy in the region is constantly back channeling with the prosecutors. The idea that this event, which is exactly what the State Department has been soft calling for, for months now, since – at least months, I should note, if not arguably a few years – that this miraculous windfall – because they don’t have leverage against Pavel otherwise.
He’s living in the UAE, and they don’t have the attack surface on Telegram that they had on WhatsApp. They had this problem with WhatsApp a few years ago, because WhatsApp is the other major end-to-end encrypted chat. There’s only two games in town in the encrypted chat space: WhatsApp and Telegram.
And I watched this happen with the Brazil story. The U.S. State Department, again, capacity built by essentially bribing through tens of millions of dollars of flooded “foreign assistance” to all the censorship advocates in Brazil. This plan to stop the use of WhatsApp and Telegram by Bolsonaro supporters in Brazil, and Modi supporters in India, places like the Atlantic Council, which has seven CIA directors on its board, gets annual funding, every single year, from the U.S. State Department, all four branches of the U.S. military, as well as CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy.
They held a conference in the summer of 2019 about the need to stop the use of WhatsApp and Telegram in countries around the world, especially Brazil and India…
TUCKER: 1.03.45
Because we can’t spy on them as effectively?
MIKE: 1.03.48
Because the State Department had already censored social media – had already gotten social media censored in those countries. Bolsonaro supporters were effectively booted from Twitter 1.0, Facebook and YouTube after 2016. They were said to be this international “movement of ideas” (can’t have that, heaven forbid…) between pro-Trump and pro-Bolsonaro.
So, after the State Department set up this apparatus that got them censored from social media, they all ran to WhatsApp and Telegram.
So, the State Department sort of created this encrypted chat problem. They could only talk in an uncensored way because the State Department already censored their other main communication artery.
And so, WhatsApp and Telegram were put in the crosshairs of this USAID program to kill political support for Bolsonaro, and WhatsApp bent the knee within two and a half weeks, because WhatsApp is very vulnerable.
It is owned by Facebook, and Facebook is a major, major…has a major surface attack area for WhatsApp.
If you recall, Jim Jordan subpoenaed these emails from Facebook a few months ago – the Facebook Files – and in the Facebook Files, it came out that Nick Clegg, the head of public policy, the head of the censorship terms of service at Facebook, did not want to cooperate with the Biden administration’s demands to censor covid, but urged his team to do so anyway because “we have bigger fish to fry” with the Biden administration, so we need to think creatively about ways to be receptive to their censorship demands.
Because, Facebook is totally dependent on the U.S. State Department, the intelligence services, and to some extent, the long range threat of the Pentagon to protect Facebook’s data monopolies, to protect its advertising revenue, to protect it from laws like the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA).
So, this has come out, as well, and I was at the State Department when I was called by nine Google lobbyists, who told me that the number one threat to Google’s business model over the next five years is the EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act.
They need the protection of Big Daddy State Department for favors for their profits. And so, they play ball with the State Department’s censorship demands in order to preserve that.
But they are under the barrel of it, and people like Mark Zuckerberg right now, are feeling like they’re at their wits end, because they gave the State Department, and they gave the Biden administration everything they asked for, in terms of censorship demands, and they’re still being bullied by them.
So, just yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg wrote this letter to Chairman Jim Jordan, where he came out in the strongest statement yet, that the Biden administration forced Facebook, effectively, to do the censorship, that they pressured them strongly, and that the only reason they did these censorship actions – whether that was the Hunter Biden laptop, or whether that was the covid censorship censoring covid origins, censoring all issues around the covid regime – was from pressure from the Biden administration.
And not only that, he said that he regretted doing it and would end — now has structures in place to stop Facebook from relenting from such government pressure in the first place. And while this is great to hear Zuckerberg say, it would have been a lot more useful four months ago when there was a Supreme Court case under deliberation, where the Supreme Court effectively argued that there was an insufficient causal relationship between government pressure and platform censorship action.
So, having a direct letter from Mark Zuckerberg unequivocally saying that there was, as the head of Facebook, would have been very useful to establish a Supreme Court precedent.
But, leaving that aside, and the too-little-too-late nature of that, this is something that had been percolating for awhile. Mark Zuckerberg said that he regretted the censorship actions five months ago on Joe Rogan, so it’s no surprise that Zuckerberg expressed that in writing.
But, the fact that he would do it to the Republican Chairman of the House Weaponization Committee, and the fact that he said that he’s no longer supporting Democrats in this election cycle, signals to me that he fears The Blob now (our foreign policy establishment), and feels like the Harris administration’s continuity of the Biden administrations pressure policies, that there’s no amount of flesh that he can give up as a pound to satiate their blood lust, and that he’s turning, if not towards Trump, then something that’s against that, and trying to provide whatever moral support to that, without making a direct contribution to the other side, and sort of maintaining the sort of patina of neutrality on financial and messaging grounds – he’s not doing what Elon is doing by voicing explicit support, he’s not providing financial support – but he is very strongly motioning, there, because I think he thinks that the neutrality of a Trump administration – because Trump was neutral…Trump was completely neutral…frankly, to the point where he should not have been (*He’s letting them show their hand. It’s what he does, he paints the target, then lights up the night).
💥TRUMP PAINTS THE TARGET...AC-130 GUNSHIP LIGHTS UP THE NIGHT💥
I mean, you had American platforms who were censoring the American people who had voted for that government. And, blasting away at our First Amendment in doing so. The fact is, how can the government protect platforms that are censoring the speech of Americans. This would be like the State Department supporting Exxon Mobile and overthrowing governments to get oil and gas for Exxon Mobile, while Exxon Mobile was cutting half of Americans off at the pump at a gas station if they voted for Eisenhower.
This is such an abuse, it’s honestly the end of this sort of idea that this favors-for-favors relationship between big government and big corporations has a trickle-down effect to help the welfare of the American people. This has always been the justification for the national champion policy at the State Department, that when big government, when the Pentagon and State Department, and CIA, and USAID, and the whole swarm of soft power institutions do favors for Exxon Mobile, or Microsoft, or Wal-Mart, or Pepsi, then that means cheaper retail products for us, we have the export markets, because we control that government, we have the natural resources, so we have cheap gas, middle class living.
But, this has completely inverted that, because it’s big government teaming up with big corporations specifically to deprive Americans of access to those platforms.
But, again, it’s to protect the institutions against the individuals. It’s to protect this constellation of cloistered foreign policy institutions and their international agenda, installed at a regional level, on every plot of dirt on earth, from being opposed by people who might vote against them organically in a free and open information market.
The media is now, indeed, that Fourth Estate and the Fifth Column.
To be continued in Part 6…
END OF PART 5 /