Here's the News: Tucker Just Dropped a Bombshell About a Whole Industry Behind Online Censorship
Tucker Carlson’s fascinating interview with Mike Benz detailed the emergence of what Benz calls “military rule” through an online censorship industry in the U.S., laying out just how corrupt and tyrannical the U.S. defense and foreign policy establishment has become. So, after the 2020 election and Covid-19 pandemic - the two most censored events in human history – what does this mean for future elections and, terrifyingly, pandemics?--💙Support our channel and become an awakened wonder through Locals:https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-Support WATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble:https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumble Visit the new merch store:https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-Store Follow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week, we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr., Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Maté, and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
No, here's the fucking news!
Hello there you Awakening Wanderers, thanks for joining us on our convoluted, baffling yet beautiful journey to truth and freedom together.
To support our work, click the link in the description.
You get additional content every week, me commentating on cultural matters.
We don't release those videos anywhere else, you'll love them.
You also get to join us for interviews with proper journalists and key political figures that are going to help lead this movement that will ultimately have to come from you to It's inevitable and eventual success and it cannot come quickly enough because we now know as a result of the fascinating interview between Mike Benz and Tucker Carlson that there's a new emergent political force operating on a global stage that you may have heard referred to before by authors like Martin
But we'll now understand in great depth as this censorship industrial complex truly emerges which means that the 2020 election and the 2019 pandemic were the most censored events in human history.
That now the US foreign policy and defense industry have unprecedented power and with 2024 being the year of elections it's likely that we will be experiencing more censorship than ever before.
Nick Mark Clegg, a former British politician and now head of Aspect of Meta, has 40,000 employees over there dedicated to censoring free speech in order to preserve what he bizarrely refers to as election integrity.
And the word integrity does not belong in this conversation.
We are in a war for freedom of information right now.
We are in a war to control the perception of reality.
Independent news sources such as this one, the ability to communicate immediately and with as little friction between us, the way that we currently can, is under threat.
Democracy itself is under threat.
International relationships are under threat.
The ability to challenge the legitimacy of wars and measures taken by our government, often under the guidance of global organisations, is under threat.
We have to wake up immediately. Several people have sent me this interview
saying it's hypocal and given that Tucker Carlson's done two very important interviews
recently, he did that one with Putin, then he had a little chat with another guy who gets
a little bit of heat from the mainstream media. Yes, old Russ himself, but this is the
one. This is the one to watch because Mike Bent explains how information and therefore
reality is controlled by some very powerful interests. We're going to look at some of it
together, then we're going to analyse it further, and then we're going to organise
against this machine together.
They explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned
from doing itself.
And then they articulated a multi-step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions.
They said on tape the tech companies would not have done but for their pressure, which
involved using threats of government force because they were the deputised arm of the
government.
They had a formal partnership with the DHS.
They were able to use DHS's proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk
to top brass at all the tech companies for takedowns.
So what we thought of as big tech censorship was always government censorship.
Governments have proxy organizations within social media, and actually social media itself, operating to control the information that is accessible.
Generally speaking, this is just my personal opinion, it's information that would arm you with sufficient facts to become a dissident, for you to become suspicious and cynical of your own government's actions.
In short, The apparatus that was designed, and this is explicit and becomes more explicit over the course of this conversation we're having now, that was designed to control what was referred to as terrorism, foreign terror threats, has now been turned inward onto domestic populations.
This happens in my country, the United Kingdom, where you have the 77th Brigade, which has peculiar ties to Caroline Dynage, who was specifically the politician who demanded that I be demonetised.
And when I say peculiar connections, it's her husband, Rannit.
Psy-ops that were utilized to control foreign dissidents when it was convenient and necessary are now being used to control domestic populations.
And for a moment, pause just here on the semantics of this situation.
They were regarded, weren't they, groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, they say quite rightly, as terrorists.
But we regarded the key feature of terrorism to be sort of violence, and maybe because of the way that we were generally coached, perhaps some of the religious and cultural paraphernalia We belong to the idea of the terrorist.
But now we know that what terrorism truly means is a desire and potentially the ability to disrupt the agenda of the powerful.
Because guess who's a terrorist now?
You and me.
And anyone that's interested in opposing their narrative.
Even if that means simply having a conversation on reasonable matters like personal medical pursuits.
Or having a perspective that might be contrary to the popular or mainstream view regarding a war.
You are terrorists now.
And they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation ban called delegitimization.
which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any Discord post,
any Twitch video, anything on the internet that undermine public faith and confidence
in the use of mail-in ballots or early voting drop boxes or ballot tabulation issues on election day
was a prima facie terms of service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy.
Excellent.
People are in prison as a result of that, by the way, now.
And remember that France has just introduced laws to prevent you criticising Pfizer.
This is happening right now.
And look, to Ireland too, the new hate speech laws that are peculiarly diffuse and oddly draconian.
And our country, the online safety bill, championed by someone who has connections to psy-ops that were previously deployed against terrorism.
I don't want to sound like a hysterical, I'm not a branting conspiracy theorist, I'm simply pointing out that global organisations with global reach have a singular policy that they are deploying against vast populations.
And someone like Mike Benz here on Tucker's platform, gracefully delivered by Elon Musk, points out where the legislation emerged from and what the chronology of these events was.
That they only adopted because of pass-through government pressure from the Election Integrity Partnership, which they bragged about on tape, including the grid that they used to do this, and simultaneously invoking threats of government breaking them up, or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies unless they did this.
That's brilliant, because do you remember all the demonopolisation conversations?
I remember being broadly supportive of that.
Yeah, you should break up Facebook.
You should break up Big Tech.
You should have that communally run, democratically by the people.
No, no, no, not the last bit, but we should break them up.
All that was was a threat to get Big Tech platforms to be obedient and start acting as proxies for the government.
Now, these are things that we're all experiencing.
If you've had a single post disappear, let alone if you've been subject to massive psyops yourself, this is this policy in action.
As well as inducing crisis PR by working with their media allies.
And they said the government, DHS, could not do that themselves.
And so they set up this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon, and IC networks to run this pre-censorship campaign, which by their own math had 22 million tweets on Twitter alone.
And mind you, they did this on 15 platforms.
This is hundreds of millions of posts.
Which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they could not be amplified or they existed in a sort of limited state purgatory or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact-checking labels where you couldn't actually click through the thing or you had to, it was an inconvenience to be able to share it.
I've always been cynical about online activism, but now simply by sharing posts like this, you are becoming a dissident.
You can contradict the intentions of the state powers that Mike Benz is describing.
Now they did this seven months before the election.
This took out- Wait, wait, may I ask you to pause right there?
So what you're saying is, what you're suggesting is, they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held.
It looks very bad.
What an extraordinary suggestion.
But even something as apocal as election rigging, which in a way is just a technological evolution of ideas like gerrymandering and manipulation and uniparty policies and comparable politics within both of the major parties in most democratic nations, it's shocking, astonishing to a degree, but also, God, if you're living in this space, hardly surprising.
Let's look in more detail now about this age of censorship that we've entered into.
And how censorship's not just like what it used to mean in the old days, a sticker across explicit images in a potentially erotic magazine.
No, what it means now is the control of reality itself, the control of elections, the control of global policies around health, the control of your mind, your reality, the control of everyone you love, everyone you care for, being filtered for and dominated by systems that you didn't vote for.
And if you do vote for them, that vote may not count, it seems.
Let's get into it.
Mike Benz, the Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, explained to Tucker how a constellation of federal agencies and publicly funded institutions under the pretext of countering misinformation rigged the 2020 election and are right now smothering the First Amendment and rigging the 2024 election through massive state-sponsored censorship online.
The 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, says Benz, were the two most censored events in human history.
And 2024 is shaping up to be the same, thanks to the emergence of a federal censorship industrial complex.
In a sense, this is the pinnacle of stories we've been covering for a good while now.
The censorship industrial complex is a term that we learned from Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi.
Recently, because of Lee Fang's reporting, we were able to understand that Moderna had been spying on our channel.
We know that the government spent money ensuring that our content got curtailed and shut down, that stories were being planted in the media.
It's astonishing what's taking place here, and it's astonishing that it's continuing.
Think for a moment that Julian Assange is having those hearings.
Think for a moment about the revelations of Edward Snowden some time ago, that had comparable revelations, but now looks like some old-timey hacking, like where the Five Eyes nations all exchanged information on one another's populations in order to get round pesky freedom of information and privacy laws in those domestic territories themselves.
Now what's happening is this is metastasized into a vast unstoppable cyborg of censorship and control.
The problem here is profound, with deep historical roots that go back to the aftermath of World War II and the creation of the CIA, along with a host of US-funded international institutions.
But for our purposes it suffices to understand the problem in its two most recent stages, the period from 1991 to 2014 and from 2014 to the present.
What's being referred to are the establishment of the legacy news media and its implicit connections to the state from their inception, Operation Mockingbird and various other ways that the CIA and deep state organisations have always infiltrated media.
And the problem occurred when legacy media's power base became diminished with the rise of social media and the internet.
At the outset of internet privatisation in 1991, free speech online was seen as an instrument of statecraft.
At that time, says Benz, internet free speech was championed by the US foreign policy and defence establishments as a way to support dissident groups around the world in their efforts to overthrow authoritarian or disfavoured regimes.
That's why freedom of speech used to be a neoliberal That's why, as you might say, as people say, the left used to care about free speech.
At that point, free speech could be used to destabilize foreign governments.
Hey, these dissident groups, they should have free speech because that free speech means that we'll be able to corrupt their democratic processes and install a puppet government.
Now free speech means that you might start challenging your establishment, the United States government, the UK government, the Australian, Canadian government.
Now you are the dissident and free speech is not so popular.
That's how and why that change took place.
I've always been curious about it.
Didn't the left used to talk about free speech?
Didn't I grow up thinking free speech because of women's rights, because of civil rights, because of rights of gay folk, because it's important that we can all speak to one another?
No, no, no, no, no.
It was a convenient tool to support it then and it's convenient to shut it down now.
Astonishing.
It allowed the U.S.
to conduct what Benz calls insta-regime change operations in service of the State Department's foreign policy agenda.
The plan worked really well.
Among other things, free speech on the internet allowed U.S.-backed groups to assert control over state-run media in foreign countries, making it much easier to overthrow government.
Every time you hear someone say, in Tehran, they're the sexist over there, don't care about women's rights, Now we can learn to tune in to what's actually happening.
Hold on a minute, we know they don't care about women's rights.
They're obviously trying to institute a regime change in that country.
So just watch out for it now because the legacy media will do it again and again because that's what they do.
The high watermark of this way of deploying free speech online, Benz explains, was the Arab Spring in 2011 and 2012 when governments the Obama administration considered problematic.
Egypt, Tunisia, Libya all began falling in the so-called Facebook and Twitter revolutions.
During that time, the State Department worked closely with these social media companies to keep them up and running in those countries to be used as tools for protesters and dissident groups that were trying to circumvent state censorship.
So if your agenda is in alignment with their agenda, they will support you.
If it isn't, they won't.
Say, a figure like Zelensky, who just becomes a hero overnight and he's turning up the Golden Globes and billions of dollars are going his way.
Do you really think that that's because they care about Ukrainian people?
Or do you think, just temporarily, Zelensky becomes, oh look, use this guy quick, baggage him up like a mule with funding just strapped on him like dynamite and sent in to explode conveniently for their narrative.
And if Zelensky at some point becomes inconvenient, just ask Colonel Gaddafi what happens when you're no longer useful to the establishment.
Oh, you can't cause, you know, dead now because they facilitate his death.
We came, we saw, he died.
So this is a significant moment when you look at the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the ongoing vilification of Vladimir Putin, who I acknowledge is a tyrannical figure, war criminal, all of that.
It's a serious thing.
But look at it through the lens of utility and exploitation.
And again, the 2014 coup, which we talk about all the time, comes up.
This is fascinating.
All that changed in 2014 after the US-backed coup in Ukraine toppled the government of Viktor Yanukovych, and there was an unexpected pro-Russia counter-coup in Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.
That's literally the advent of the war we're involved in now.
It was that same year, says Benz, when the people of Crimea voted to be annexed into the Russian Federation.
That was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO.
For a moment we can question what NATO does and what NATO's for.
Do you think NATO is for you?
We care about free speech!
Free speech, everyone!
And now, let's hear from the people of Crimea using their free speech!
We would like to belong to Russia!
Yeah, I don't like this free speech!
That's bad!
Free speech, that's a hate crime!
Was that?
I heard some hate crime right there, did you?
It sounded like hate to me, boss!
Let's get Victoria Nuland!
Let's get all of our state marionettes in to say that hate speech is on the rise!
Oh my god, all of this hate speech!
Thereafter, NATO, the CIA and the State Department, together with the intelligence agencies of our European allies, did an about-face on internet free speech.
Oh, you don't like free speech all of a sudden?
They began instead to engage in what amounted to hybrid or information warfare to censor what they saw as Russian propaganda online.
These efforts quickly spread beyond Ukraine and Eastern Europe to include the censorship of populist groups on the right that were emerging across the EU as a response to the Syrian migrant crisis.
We all saw this take place as well.
We remember the vilification of far-right groups.
Now whatever your politics are, you're actually, in a democracy, entitled to them.
Personally, I would suggest hating individuals or groups of people on the basis of their culture.
It's not acceptable, but I can understand people having national identities because for a long time we were told that we were meant to be protecting our nations and going to war to protect our nations and sacrificing our lives to protect our nation.
By the time Brexit emerged in the summer of 2016 explains Benz, NATO and the foreign policy establishment felt there was a real crisis afoot.
These are the same bloody countries that are being bombed by the exact same interests that are telling you that you're
racist for having concerns about your country.
So, wow, a lot to learn.
By the time Brexit emerged in the summer of 2016, explains Benz,
NATO and the foreign policy establishment felt there was a real crisis afoot.
The problem was spreading west from Central and Eastern Europe and it had to be stopped.
If it wasn't, then Brexit might trigger the collapse of the entire EU, along with NATO,
and the entire constellation of supranational institutions that relied on NATO.
Looking back at it, as an inhabitant of this nation, what do you think their real connection to the EU and NATO and all that stuff is?
Anyway, we love the EU!
It's obvious in retrospect that what they don't want is the disruption of their ability through these agencies to evade democracy and the process of democracy.
Referendums and referenda like Brexit or the mad giddy election of Donald Trump is obviously an anomaly and a disruption to a global trajectory wherever you stand on either of those issues and whatever you think they're about because I notice that they're generally rendered as being about hate but since then I've learned that hate is one of the One of the ways, and hate speech and racism and the persecution of minorities, which I'm pretty convinced the global establishment don't actually care about, is one of the ways that they legitimise censorship and control.
And through that lens, I look at Brexit a little differently.
The entire post-war architecture of institutions might come crashing down all because the hearts and minds of the people were being swayed.
We're told that that architecture is to maintain peace, but even that's something that I might want to interrogate a little.
So went the thinking anyway.
As far as the National Security Establishment was concerned, citizens were being swayed by Russian and far-right propaganda and we can't have that.
Under these circumstances, free speech was the last thing that could be allowed to flourish online.
Censorship became the order of the day.
As Carlton put it, These NATO and EU leaders identified their new enemy as democracy within their own countries, their own voters in other words.
They feared that their people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way and they went to war against that.
And doesn't it make sense really that you, if you become awakened, enlightened, and in tune,
and demand real power in your own life, and that means the ability to disrupt the interests
of the institutions and groups that are currently powerful, because at the moment there is a wealth transfer,
it seems that more and more we're living within a fuel and energy crisis,
inflation, explosion of grocery prices.
If you wanted to influence that, or interact even with that,
you would be impacting their current strategy and their current structures.
And so therefore you are the problem.
And then Trump was elected.
From that moment, and indeed as we know from the Russia collusion hoax,
even before Trump was elected in November 2016, the US foreign policy and defense establishment,
which had done so much to center and weaponize the internet overseas,
turned their attention to American citizens.
This is a theme you hear again and again.
Infrastructure that was deployed overseas to create regime change, to control dissidents, to arm, to inspire, to utilize dissidents, has been deployed in domestic populations.
You've experienced it.
I've experienced it.
We've all experienced it.
Sometimes I think it's as simple as they've got the technology and they sort of can't help but use it.
But other times I think it's about absolute and total control.
Initially, their predicate for domestic surveillance was Crossfire Hurricane, the fatuous notion that Russia had infiltrated the Trump campaign and that Trump was a Russian asset.
That's still going on.
Nancy Pelosi is still making claims along those lines.
Literally, like right now probably somewhere.
Once that collapsed, they needed another excuse to spy on and censor Americans who held disfavored opinions or who spread misinformation, to put it in the parlance of the censorship industrial complex.
To do that, they had to get around the prohibition against the CIA operating on American soil.
Since they couldn't very well get away with openly spying on and censoring American citizens, they decided to house the bulk of their censorship operations inside the Department of Homeland Security, specifically in a part of DHS tasked with reducing and eliminating threats to US citizens.
US critical physical and cyber infrastructure. Hence, domestic misinformation, which is really
just a term for opinions and information that the national security state doesn't like
or that run counter to State Department policy, was classified as an attack on critical cognitive
infrastructure and could therefore be censored. What it amounted to was an end run around
the First Amendment.
We're told that the internet creates these silos, these bubbles of opinion, these worlds
of escalating extremism. But on a personal and interpersonal level, did you not notice
that in your own family, you used to have people that had different political views
and at Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever, you'd just go, oh, he's a bit Republican or
they're a bit of a hippie or a lefty.
Then you got on with your life rather than it being a frontier for a new war.
Where is this new atmosphere actually coming from?
Well, we've just had it explained to us.
It's to legitimise regarding ordinary citizens as terrorism and differences of opinion as an existential threat.
But even DHS couldn't do this directly, so it outsourced online censorship operations to third parties like the Election Integrity Partnership, or EIP, which consisted of four separate organisations.
The Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and a firm called Grafica.
These private sector partners did the nitty-gritty work of mapping out entire online networks of people who helped spread certain disfavored opinions, or what the censors called false narratives.
Essentially, they were deputized to censor Americans on behalf of the government.
Do you remember when you first saw like maybe a graph about the dark Joel Rogan is a gateway to being a racist.
He's a right-wing portal gateway.
That was the result of these organizations, many of which are government-funded or privately funded by vested interests.
Only that Atlantic Council needs a bloody good looking at.
And what they did is just created the idea that you can't trust powerful online sources whose opinions run counter to establishment narratives.
Once they've determined that that was the desired outcome, they set about finding ways.
Well, you shouldn't listen to this person because they're a racist.
You shouldn't listen to this person because they're a sex offender.
You shouldn't listen to this, but they just filled in the blanks.
These managers and their partners inside the US government went about their task with gusto, including a seven-month pre-censorship campaign ahead of the 2020 election.
Any content challenging public faith in mail-in ballots, early voting and ballot drop boxes was flagged for violating new rules about delegitimizing elections.
The censors, along with their governments, had strong-armed the social media companies into adopting these rules as documented In great detail last year with the release of the Twitter files, you'll remember when Schellenberg has come on our show, you can watch these interviews, they're up now, he talked about pre-bunking.
How journalists are often invited to conferences and told, hey, there's going to be all this disinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop, so when that does come out, will you go ahead and pre-bunk that for us?
We know that now.
Indeed, the Twitter files exposed a massive effort by the federal government to deputize Twitter and other social media companies to do what it could not, at least not legally.
But in some ways, the Twitter files just revealed the tip of the censorship iceberg.
One of the problems I have with the liberal left, even though I really admire some brilliant online broadcasters and comics, for example, is their unwillingness to address that figures like Trump or Elon Musk, who might be out of alignment with some of their cultural views, are serving this vital function by disrupting exactly this narrative.
Elon Musk's The acquisition of X is a problem for them because they lost a compliant partner in a space that they needed to control.
And subsequently Elon Musk is dealing with a lot of stuff and a lot of flack and all of that.
And you can have your own views about what his overall function is.
But when it comes to this particular problem, and I believe that this is THE problem, the control of information and therefore the control of reality, Elon Musk is disrupting that trend and tendency, as did Brexit, as did Trump.
Wherever you stand on the cultural purview around each of those issues.
And I would also start to be open to the possibility that I personally may have misunderstood the cultural purview because where did I get it from?
Who gave me that context?
The State Department, through grants and product development assistance to private entities like the Global Disinformation Index, GDI, and NewsGuard, was actively intervening in the news media market to render disfavored press outlets unprofitable by funding the infrastructure development and marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press.
One of the moments in that interview that I enjoyed was when he said, what are you going to do when the New
York Times is reduced to the power and capacity of an average or at least somewhat large Facebook page?
This is what's taken place in the last few years.
The legacy media's control of the minds of the population has been significantly challenged, reduced, castrated,
annihilated, perhaps even, and what we are experiencing now is an attempt to reassert
centralized power.
The State Department then gave these tools to companies like Facebook and LinkedIn to target disfavored media
outlets.
Through these and other methods during the 2020 election cycle and the COVID pandemic,
the government-backed censorship industrial complex throttled millions of online posts,
suppressing news traffic to news sites and undermined revenue streams for a host of outlets and influencers with
disfavored or dissident views.
Both the GDI and State Department's Global Engagement Center, GEC, developed censorship tools that included supposed fact-checking technologies, media literacy tools, media intelligence platforms, social network mapping, and machine learning artificial intelligence technology.
All these tools are being deployed now to control information.
But this isn't a thing of the past.
All the censorship infrastructure described above is still intact, still functioning, and is firing on all cylinders right now ahead of the 2024 election.
Is there one politician that is right now saying, I will dismantle this?
Bobby Kennedy is.
He's saying on day one, I'll dismantle this.
Is Trump saying it?
I don't know.
You let me know in the comments and chat.
This is a global problem that should be addressed.
If anything, the censorship industrial complex is more robust than it was four years ago.
Just last week, META's President of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, boasted on CNBC that he currently has some 40,000 employees, which is nearly 60% of META's entire workforce tasked with censoring speech on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Clegg also claimed META has spent about $20 billion, including $5 billion in the last year, on censorship efforts, or what What he euphemistically called election integrity.
Sometimes you wonder where power is now situated and a paragraph like that tells you where power has gone.
If politicians seem replaceable and interchangeable, if democracy seems intransigent, turgid and static, where is power?
Well, it's there when you've got billions being spent on controlling information that directs the outcome of elections and even beyond that, global policies.
What does that mean in practice?
We don't have to guess.
Remember that Facebook infamously censored the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020 at the behest of the FBI.
With 40,000 employees now charged with censoring hate speech and ensuring election integrity, we can be fairly certain that if another Hunter Biden laptop story comes along this election cycle, it too will be quashed by the censors.
Difficult to dispute.
Why exactly is our government doing this?
It's not merely a partisan preference for ensuring Democrats stay in power, but something deeper and more insidious.
To circle back to Carlson's interview with Benz, it's because the national security state has come to regard democracy not as the will of the people expressed through elections, but as the constellation of government agencies, government-backed institutions, corporations, media outlets and non-profit groups.
Protecting democracy in this view means protecting these institutions from the people they were putatively meant to serve.
It's almost like over a broader time frame, there's been a return to something like an aristocracy or even a monarchy or oligarchy.
There was a sort of a brief blip where you had, oh, this is representative democracy.
Here are these separate states and cities that might all interdependently be run by elected councils and officials and true democracy could be achieved.
That idea has been crushed by a broader trend towards, let's centralise power, let's tell people they've got democracy, but what we've got is total control.
What's been described there is total control.
As Benz at one point says in the interview, the relationship between the managers of the American empire and the citizens of the American homeland has broken down.
And that's played itself out in the story of the censorship industry.
I think what we have there between that interview and this article is a good understanding, as we are likely to achieve, of what's happening in the world right now.
The potential for information, for dissent, for diverse opinions, for conversation, for discourse, discussion, contradiction, democracy, power, as local as the individual, as diverse as the planet, has exploded into a set of systems that were simply not ready for it.
And we're now witnessing those systems try to regain control, introducing new laws to regain control, exerting new influence over the companies that have access to all of us, i.e.
the big tech and social media platforms that we all now use as part of everyday life.
Nothing less than a war for the control of our minds and our reality is taking place and all of us are somehow confined to very narrow bandwidths of conversation.
Little issues here or there, local or topical, or what about this and should that have happened and what about this?
When in fact what we all need to collectively do is take a broader perspective together And so the people I disagree with on the local and individual level have so much more in common with me than these vast institutions that are attempting to assert and exert mass control.
And unless we find ways together of forming a collective manifesto of demanding a decentralized but unified opposition to the problem of globalism and the global censorship required to achieve it, as outlined in these two pieces, then we're going to be in real serious trouble.
So get ready to make some new alliances right now.
Now get ready to, as they used to say, hold your nose and form friendships and alliances with cultural groups, ideas even that you might not agree with, because the alternative is plainly in sight now.
It's a centralized technocracy where a cadre of experts, powerful institutions, have near total control, executed through technology in forms of social credit scores, digital currencies, Absolute control of media that is absolutely unprecedented.
And while we're all distracted by, oh no, are these people like new Nazis or populists or is that hate speech?
They are quietly but very deftly like a sliding saber slicing right through the heart of everything that we're supposed to hold dear.
Freedom of speech, representative systems of government.
We're going to lose all of it unless we wake up now.
Well, that's just what I think.
Remember, we make this content all the time.
You can support our movement by joining us, clicking the link on the description below and getting involved in the content we make every single day together.
