Facebook has "hired" the Atlantic Council - a NATO, US government, and foreign funded "think tank" to determine whether posts or members are authentic or whether they are "agents of a foreign power." How is it possible that US government's directly funded entities are collaborating with corporations to decide what speech is to be prohibited?
Facebook has "hired" the Atlantic Council - a NATO, US government, and foreign funded "think tank" to determine whether posts or members are authentic or whether they are "agents of a foreign power." How is it possible that US government's directly funded entities are collaborating with corporations to decide what speech is to be prohibited?
Facebook has "hired" the Atlantic Council - a NATO, US government, and foreign funded "think tank" to determine whether posts or members are authentic or whether they are "agents of a foreign power." How is it possible that US government's directly funded entities are collaborating with corporations to decide what speech is to be prohibited?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
How are you this morning, Dr. Poor?
I'm doing very well.
We're going to solve all the problems with social media, make sure they live within the bounds of capitalism and individual liberty and no encroachment on our rights, and make sure they're totally separate from the government.
So we just a little job there.
But anyway, we've talked about this not too long ago.
We talked about Twitter and what do you do with them?
Do you regulate them or try to separate them from the benefits they get from government?
And who's supposed to be the monitors?
Who should censor what goes up?
Because obviously they can't.
We don't want anything and everything on our website.
So who's responsible under these conditions?
And how do we prevent the abuse?
But what we've come across here is an article dealing with NATO and how Facebook now has become embedded with NATO.
Of course, we believe Facebook and other social media have been way too close to big government anyway.
The way they start and the way they're regulated and the way they provide information to government, that's been there.
But this is one where Facebook, we know, got into a little trouble.
And it looked like maybe the market was actually working and people were getting disgusted and they were under the gun and Zuckerberg had to go to the Congress.
Stocks went down a little bit and this sort of thing.
So he got himself into a bit of trouble.
And it's all on monitoring.
What does he do?
How does he do this?
How does he pick and choose?
Does he pick on us, us good guys, you know, libertarian, conservative, constitutionalist, you know, minimal government people?
If that's the case, why does he do this?
How come he's allowed to do this?
So he makes his decision, business decision, of course, not philosophic, nothing, because he's not into this political stuff, the way he paints it.
So he figures, well, if I could get somebody that's semi-official government who are experts in making sure that bad information, things that undermine our national security and getting the truth out, if he had somebody that was an official that could monitor and guide him through that, he might not get blamed for any of this.
Blame it on the people that is helping him out and guiding him and giving him this special advice.
So he found somebody, the Atlantic Council.
So the Atlantic Council has come to his rescue and now for several months now they are monitoring and they're deciding who the good guys and who the bad guys are.
What do you think about this?
Do you think this is a good solution to the problem this country faces with the propaganda that social media cooperates with for government?
It's shocking that it's not more of a scandal that Facebook is turning to a U.S. government-funded entity, you know, funded by the Pentagon, the State Department, other aspects of the U.S. government.
It's essentially depending on the U.S. government to determine what can be shown on Facebook.
I mean, this whole thing, as you mentioned, this whole thing is a product of this insane Russia gate hysteria that goes on and on and on like a zombie.
You know, after the election, as you point out, they dragged Zuckerberg before Congress and they pointed their fingers and yelled at him, how dare you let some Russians take out some ads?
If you remember the ads were these crazy things about who would Jesus want to win or something.
Most of the ads were taken out after the elections, even though they wanted to claim that it was to influence the elections.
So the whole thing was bogus, but they wanted to take this guy to the carpet and say, you had better crack down on your users, or we're going to get you.
It was what the government said to him.
So I said, what do I do?
I don't know anything about this, as you say.
So turning to the experts, the Atlantic Council, these guys are supposed to be objective experts, but they're anything but that.
They're tools of the U.S. government.
And here's the thing that Dr. Paul gets me.
We've talked about it before.
They were brought on to enhance the investigations of foreign interference.
They themselves, the Atlantic Council, is funded by foreign governments.
They are the foreign interference.
But, you know, what bothers me about this, it's so blatant.
You know, before they were doing it anyway, you know, they were in collusion and they worked with the government.
They did what they were told and they provided the information for them.
But this is almost out in the open.
Say, we are.
We do partners with these people and they're tax-supported groups.
And so I think sometimes when it looks like they're coming up with more honesty and openness, it means that they're more cocky.
They figure, oh, look, nobody knows what's going on.
We'll just show that we're looking to the good guys to give us guidance and therefore it'll give credibility.
And of course, everybody believes what the government tells us what to do.
This is the only thing that's on our side.
People, if they know what's going on, they're not quite willing to say the best arbiter is going to be the Atlantic Council that has all this money, all this special interest money, that they're all of a sudden going to be objective in foreign policy.
The Atlantic Council has not much of a good record of having anything that compares to what we're talking about in foreign policy, which really is the pro-American foreign policy, pro-American citizen foreign policy, and it's a policy of peace and prosperity.
They don't talk about that.
They talk about power and money and control.
And now they look like they're going to be the saviors of the Facebooks of the world when they get criticized.
Say, ah, now we have credibility.
Atlanta Council, they're going to come up.
And these are good guys.
They've had experience in this matter.
And then, and Facebook, Zuckerberg even said it.
We'll just, you know, if there's a controversy, we can sort of pass it on to them.
Well, we did our best.
We got these good advisors, and they told us to sanction this person or cut him off.
And that's supposed to satisfy everybody.
So I don't think it's a very good idea.
Well, the whole thing is false advertising.
It's bogus on the front because the Atlantic Council, it's created this thing called the Digital Forensics Research Lab.
So it sounds very scientific.
It's not scientific.
It's totally political.
The thing is headed up by a former Obama administration top national security official.
This is not non-political.
The other guy in the Zero Hedge article points out that there are basically four NATO-funded guys who Facebook hires to look over these posts.
The other one's this guy called Ben Nimo, right?
He's the great digital forensic lab head of the lab.
The guy's totally wrong all the time.
He's the one that went on TV.
He went on Sky, I think, and said in the UK, and he outed several Russian bots.
But turns out they were actually UK citizens who were sick of their country's warmongering.
They came up on the TV and said, I'm not a bot.
So the guy's totally wrong.
They were wrong last week, Facebook, when they suspended 32 accounts they said were suspicious.
And this is what Reuters said.
Well, some of the U.S. officials, well, some U.S. officials said they were the work of Russian agents.
Facebook said it didn't know for sure.
These 32 accounts, some of them were actual accounts.
They were anti-racist accounts that were going to have a rally against white nationalism in D.C. Totally legitimate.
Facebook, they admit, well, we don't know, but they took them down anyway.
Here's the Atlanta Council.
Well, you know, we've always suspected that these social medias were way too close to the government.
Now, this one is coming more out in the open and admit that's where they want to get the advice.
But what about the other ones, Apple and Twitter, and Google?
They work pretty closely with the government too.
But I wonder if they would be this blatant and say, oh, yeah, this sounds like a good idea.
Maybe we'll get somebody equivalent to, or use the Atlantic Council, to supervise our program, too, to make sure that the censors are official and not just us at the company.
Matter of fact, censorship is good in a free society.
You know, you and I get to censor things about what we want to do, and we get to pick and choose.
That's so much different.
Then people can just forget about us if they don't like the program.
But this is so much different when the government moves in, and once these organizations are made huge by the help of government, then all of a sudden they're going to walk in here and be the censors.
So it is a major problem, and it's probably been there.
We cite this as, oh, wow, look, this is bigger.
I think we're just, this is like a discovery and something that we can put our finger on.
But I think, in essence, a lot of this was happening anyway.
They probably get instructions, you know, and say, well, how about this thing?
You know, he's interfering with our foreign policy.
You know, he actually, our program actually thinks it's a good idea for Trump to visit with Putin.
Oh, well, that's going to interfere with our problems.
And I can conceive that that information, it certainly, I think most people identify that with the major TV networks, but people would accept that.
But I think there were some, including myself at one time, was more hopeful that the internet would handle this a little better.
Yeah, and the thing is, what's happening is that the U.S. government or factions of the U.S. government, a very robust neocon faction of the U.S. government, is partnering with social media to simply make certain policy positions disappear.
If you hide the Ron Paul Institute and nobody can see it, then there's no opposition to war.
If you hide antiwar.com, there's nobody against this war.
Everyone's for it.
So what they're doing is chewing.
Every American, I think, should be very concerned whether you use social media or not, because it's going to start here and it's going to keep going.
Just make people disappear.
But again, we've made this point before.
The power of ideas is pretty good in that you can't stop ideas with armies.
And they still spread.
In the old days, it was pamphleteering and different things.
But even today, and you've already cited it once in this program, again, and that is in spite of all this, the American people still are very much on our side.
If they just get the information and say, well, do you like war?
How about this go to the 18 to the 25-year-olds that don't even know where the countries are that we're sending troops and taking their money and paying for it?
When push comes to shove and we run out of money, they're going to say, why are we over here?
You know, this sort of thing.
So I think the instincts are there.
The ideas are there.
They're powerful.
And in spite of all this control, we can still, with an honest poll, find out that American people still sort of like what we're talking about.
And these are not our ideas.
These are ideas and contests that have been going on for centuries.
And governments have been authoritarian.
That's what government's all about.
And they go along with it because they hear about it.
But the average person really gets, you know, the average 18-year-old doesn't get up and say, you know, I'm going to go out there and champion a war.
I think a war is a good idea.
I guess we'll fight war in Georgia.
And that's not U.S. Georgia.
We'll go over there and fight that.
And nobody even knows where it is.
The young teenagers don't do that.
I think somebody estimated that if you took all the people, even in a draft, the percentage of people that might say, yeah, that's a good idea.
I think it's 5%.
5% really like it just because they're driven by violence.
But most people aren't.
And the people I knew in the military, and one of the reasons that I was always very pleased with is with my non-interventionist, more peaceful approach to affairs, you know, I got a lot of support from the military.
Certainly, I was in the military during those five years.
I was never, hope sure, hope LBJ expands his war.
It doesn't happen that way.
So that's why we have a powerful idea.
They can't stop us.
But we still have to point this out and make people more skeptical of the information they get, whether they're getting it from their social media or whether they're getting it any place, you know, in the internet or any place on major television.
And they have to sort it out.
There's still a lot of radio talk shows that are good.
There's something's good on television.
There's certainly a lot of stuff on the internet still.
But they have to be judgmental on where they're getting the information and use some of the natural instincts, which I think are good.
Yeah.
And I would just, I would close by saying once again, this is not science.
This is a forensic lab.
No.
Fascism And Corporate Control00:03:12
This is politics.
And here's a quote from Zero Hedge pointing out, I think, which is so important.
These are the guys who are deciding whether you're fake or whether you're foreign influence.
Here's the Atlantic Council's positions.
Here's Zero Hedge.
The Atlantic Council has frequently called for, and these are all with links.
You can go to the Ron Paul Institute website and find the article and click on the links.
Atlantic Council has frequently called for things like increased military engagement in Syria, militarily confronting the Russians in Eastern Europe, and now advocating for Ukraine and Georgia to be allowed to join NATO.
The people who put these policy positions out, they're the ones who decide whether you're going to see the latest Ron Paul Institute article against war in Syria, against war with Russia, or whether it will just be sort of disappeared.
Dr. Paul, it's no wonder that our numbers and our exposure on Facebook are way down with people like this deciding who sees our stuff.
That's for sure.
You know, the subject of fascism always comes up.
It's being thrown around overly generously right now.
If they don't like what you're doing, if they think if you talk about anti-war and talk about free markets and support these positions of the Constitution, they throw out, he's a fascist, he's a fascist.
It's thrown out all the time.
You know, then you have the socialists come up, quote, attempting to win elections and influence the world.
And they're total socialists and they say, oh, we're against this fascism.
But they never stop and think about fascism.
Fascism to me is an expansion and continuation of corporatism where governments and big business get in bed together, which we have so much are.
We run a corporate state.
Medicine is run this way.
It's all over the place.
But when I see this coming together, I see this as fascism because these are big corporations, partially brought about by government, protected by government.
They participate in this.
And here we see it one step further, that they're going to blatantly get guidelines on how to censor people from the government.
So this is, I think this qualifies as very, very close to pure fascism.
Not that that is total because it does move toward a socialist system where all the prices are controlled.
But this is very, very close, this combination.
It's extreme pseudo-capitalism and corporatism.
And it isn't good.
Matter of fact, the main reason why I resent it so much is it builds the animosity between classes.
The monetary system and the system that we have wipes out the middle class, and then there's a setup where the very wealthy flaunt it and the very poor get poor and they don't understand it.
And that's what's going on in this country, and that's why there's so much hatred and hostility.
The politicians play on this.
So that's why you see what's happening today with the political system and the political campaigns going on right now.
So if you understand what true fascism is all about, you have to be wary of what's happening right now because we are moving in that direction.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.