TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MikeBenzCyber
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I want you to listen to me when I tell you the EU Digital Censorship Act was co-designed, in the United States, by Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans, explicitly as a legal crowbar to force global censorship of populist movements and governments on both sides of the Atlantic.
reSee.it AI Summary
I don’t know where Epstein is or who he’s talking to, but it’s funny the boxes are marked CIA. I saw that March 2013 pic too and assume it’s a private company with CIA initials—no seal, unusual boxes. Posting to see if someone can identify where they are. DOJ files here for source.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I don't know where Epstein is or who he's talking to, but just pointing out it's funny these boxes are all marked CIA https://t.co/01n8ropsW6
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Saw it again in this March 2013 pic. I presume it's a private company with the acronym CIA because there's no seal and I've never seen container boxes marked like that, but just posting these in case anyone can run down where exactly they are https://t.co/D3r9tDVTUZ
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
DOJ files here for source: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01144176.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01897697.pdf
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m blown away by this audio in the Epstein Files showing Epstein teaching Ehud Barak, as he exits government, how to monetize favors from decades in public service by targeting Peter Thiel and Palantir. Credit to @RyanGrim; clip dated February 2013, traced via Grok. For deeper context, see my “Understanding Epstein” series and the follow-up vids searchable on X and YT.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I’m utterly blown away by this new audio in the Epstein Files. It shows the secret conversation you fear every high-level gov’t official might have with an outside fixer to hook them up the moment they “leave government to enter the private sector.” Here, Jeffrey Epstein teaches Ehud Barak — while he is still Minister of Defense in Israel but on his way out — how to make millions of dollars in the private sector by first compiling a list of people who owe him favors from his 40 years in government service. Epstein then told Ehud Barak to pursue Peter Thiel, whose name at that point Ehud Barak did not even know how to spell, and to try to connect with a company called Palantir, which existence Ehud Barak had never heard of, and whose name Jeffrey Epstein didn’t know how to spell. Credit @RyanGrim whose clip I first saw to look for this. I used Grok to backtrace the source link from the audio. Ryan assesses this meeting took place in February 2013, which seems to line up with the audio saying Ehud Barak is about 71 at the time of the recording, as Ehud Barak is 83 today.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This transcript presents an exchange highlighting how Jeffrey Epstein allegedly acts as a “fixer” to help former government officials convert their public power into private wealth as they leave office.
Context and people:
- The discussion centers on a February 2013 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ehud Barak (then head of Israeli military intelligence, later prime minister and defense minister), and Larry Summers. The timing is notable as Barak was transitioning to the private sector and leaving government work in March 2013.
- Tom Pritzker (chairman of the Pritzker Foundation and head of the Hyatt chain) is referenced; the conversation references Tom Pritzker asking someone named Douglas about mentoring and a list of IOUs.
- The speakers describe Barak’s career trajectory and Epstein’s role as a facilitator in converting government influence into private sector opportunities.
Key claims and dynamics:
- Epstein’s role as “outside fixer” helping a previously high-ranking official navigate the private sector and monetize government power.
- The explicit strategy discussed: compile a “people index”—a list of people who owe you favors, owe you their lives, or owe you jobs. This IOU list is presented as the crucial asset for post-government opportunities.
- The stated consequence: after leaving government, the official can secure lucrative board seats, funding from foundations and philanthropies, startup capital, and high-level consulting or venture capital opportunities, all because people owe favors from their time in government.
- Barak’s situation is framed as an example of converting cresting government power into personal business leverage, with Epstein mediating connections to private-sector roles.
- The conversation suggests Epstein has facilitated similar arrangements in the United States with CIA director Bill Burns, in the United Kingdom, and possibly with Saudi actors, framing this as a general pattern.
- Specific monetization ideas discussed for Barak include pursuing board roles; Lookout (a cybersecurity company) is mentioned as a potential board opportunity that could pay “a couple million dollars.”
- There is a mention of Palantir (Peter Thiel’s firm) being discussed in the context of Barak’s potential involvement, though Barak had not heard of Palantir at the time, and Epstein notes the possibility of approaching Thiel or related circles.
- The dialogue compares Epstein’s brokerage function to a talent agent in the music industry—handling the money side, negotiations, and access to platforms—so that the individual can focus on the expertise itself.
- The two cyber companies mentioned include Lookout and Palantir, with a note that Thiel’s Palantir was not familiar to Barak or Epstein at that dinner in 2013, despite Palantir’s 2003 founding.
Additional context:
- The dialogue references an attempt to reach Peter Thiel and to surround him with “spooks,” suggesting ongoing efforts to connect Barak and Epstein with Thiel’s network.
- The overall theme is a firsthand depiction of how high-level government experience can be leveraged into private-sector power through a carefully curated network of IOUs and official-to-private transitions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Strap in because you are about to get a level of access we may never get again. This is an incredible audio file on justice.gov. I'll put the source link below. I'm at the two ten mark, and I'm just gonna play this full exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and Ahud Barak. For context, now I found this, from a clip that Ryan Grimm posted.
He deduced that this was a February 2013 meeting between Larry Summers, Barak, and Jeffrey Epstein. For context, Hud Barak was the head of Israeli military intelligence from 1983 to 1985. Then he became the, prime minister of Israel at the same time that Bill Clinton was the president of The United States. Then he became the, basically, their version of the head of the Pentagon, the defense minister. He left that position in March 2013, and this is February 2013, one month before he leaves government office.
Now this is important because what you are about to see is a conversation between the outside fixer, Jeffrey Epstein, and the still head of Israeli military as he transitions to the private sector and, the conversations about how to create your own private business and how Jeffrey Epstein shapes this. Listening to this conversation, I think, will give you a very deep understanding of the role that Epstein plays in mediating the lucrative success of private careers for formerly government officials.
Speaker 1: So what Tom asked me this morning and I he's
Speaker 0: Tom appears to be Tom Pritzker, who is the chairman of the Pritzker Foundation. He's the head of the Hyatt hotel chain. His brother is JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois.
Speaker 1: I think he told you, Douglas Yeah. Was he thought you should make a list of his work, not was
Speaker 2: Mentoring. He said good. Yes.
Speaker 1: And but who has IOUs to you? Is that who's the out of the people in the past who you think you're close to, he said that he really wanted you to make this list of this person owes me a favor. This person owes me his life. This person owes me his job.
Speaker 0: So what you're hearing him say, again, this is someone who led Israel's most elite, covert commando unit, and then became head of Israeli military intelligence, then became the head of the country, then became the head of its military, is now going out on his own at the age of 71 to try to make money to convert what was government power into personal financial power. Now, it appears that Epstein played this role in The United States with CIA director Bill Burns. Appears It that he played this role in The UK. It's probably likely that he played this role with the Saudis as well. But this is a very instructive teaching moment for what a fixer tells a government official to do to convert his government power as it is cresting into a personal business empire.
And the thing that he tells him to do is not market his skills or knowledge, but rather to compile a people index of people who owe you favors, people who owe you their lives. As I've said time and time and time and time again for a a decade, but publicly here on this platform for three years now, this is the way it works everywhere. And whether it's Jeffrey Epstein or whether it's it's someone from a NGO or foundation or someone from a fund, the incentive in government is to accumulate people who owe you favors. That way, when you go out on your own in the outside, you are placed on lucrative board seats. You get funding from the foundations and philanthropies.
You get start up capital. You get a huge sinecure, not for your government work, but for the moment you go private after your government work, because people owe you IOU's from your time in government. This is how the State Department gets captured. This is how the CIA and Department of War and USAID and these things get captured because the incentive goes from being about doing what's best for the country to doing what's best for outside privateers who then owe you favors, IOUs, so that you yourself, when you leave that government post, are able to get those board seats, book deals, stock options, consulting agreements, VC capital, you name it. I'm gonna keep playing.
Speaker 1: Oh, this person owes me. Yeah. Okay. And so we gotta work it backwards and say, here is my instead of thinking about what the opportunities are first, because right now you're focused on opportunities. I need you to focus on your Yeah.
Okay. Personal balance sheet in terms of competencies. What's your real strengths? What's the lie the lie one of the liabilities is you're 71 years old, you can't be in the business. It takes twenty years to make money.
Yep. You have to make money in the next three years. So people, competence, things so for I talked to Ian yesterday. I asked him to come. Yeah.
He flew in more than his credit for an hour. What was his impression from the He's same thing. He because he's very connected to Samsung. So he said there's this company called Lookout. He said he mentioned it to you.
Mhmm. L o o k m e t. You talk. Yep. He thinks they'll pay you a couple million dollars to be on the board.
That's gonna be good. I understood.
Speaker 0: So Jeffrey Epstein is arranging through his network of friends and people who likely owe Epstein favors for Epstein to then broker a board seat for $3,000,000 or several million dollars to Ahud Barak. What do you think Ahud Barak's government salary was as the minister of defense in Israel? The secretary of war in The United States makes about 250,000 a year. Suddenly, it goes to 3,000,000 because you got a friend named Jeffrey Epstein who can get people to back you. And part of that involves compiling that list of people who owe you IOUs, so they'll give you lots of money on the outside.
Speaker 1: Yep. He thinks they'll pay you a couple million dollars to be on the board. Yeah. It's
Speaker 0: like an agent, if you think about it, in the music industry, who negotiates on your behalf with the label, who negotiates on your behalf with the with the platforms. Most artists are only good at the music side of being a musician. They don't have necessarily the confidence, the Rolodex, the skill set, the network built up over decades to ask that on their own or to arrange it. So, Epstein serves as a one stop shop broker, especially around the money with high level intelligence and government officials.
Speaker 1: I understood. He he thought there was two cyber companies, Lookout and even though I know Peter I've never met Peter Thiel. And everybody says he sort of jumps around and acts like he's
Speaker 2: on drugs. Smoking. Yeah. Yeah. He looks under drugs.
However, he has
Speaker 1: a company called PalenTier, p a l l e n, t e t I e r. PalenTier is Peter The Teal's company. He misspelled it.
Speaker 2: Palantir, p a l a n t I e l. Yes. How do you like Teal? T h I e l e.
Speaker 1: T I h I e l.
Speaker 0: So this is fascinating because T t this is 2013. Palantir Palantir was started in 2003. Ehud Barak was the head of Israeli military intelligence. He was the prime minister of the country, and he was the head of the entire military in Israel. And he had never heard of Palantir, didn't even know how to spell it, neither did Jeffrey Epstein, until the moment Epstein just told him in this dinner.
As a as and then you'll you'll you know, the files show their attempt to try to keep getting to Peter Thiel and surrounding him by spooks, as Kathy Rumler said. But we'll do that in another video.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Source link with the full audio file here: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01621008.mov
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
For more on the deeper context at play between Epstein and Barak, and how Barak fits into the larger saga, start with my “Understanding Epstein” series which goes over it in detail here, then can watch the follow-up vids searchable on my X here & on YT https://youtu.be/N9yKdvNsOQs
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
@noauthority1991 If it’s any good, you’ll post it here on X for the world to see and let it speak for itself
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
This might be the craziest Benzstramadus Strikes Again of all-time 🔮 https://t.co/Yob0sEgFG9
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
HOLY FUCKING SHIT ***THIS*** IN THE GODDAMN CLASSIFIED INDEX THAT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED FOR 9 GODDAMN YEARS **THIS** IS WHERE THEY COOKED UP THE 'CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE' HOAX THAT CREATED THE LEGAL PREDICATE COVER FOR THE ENTIRE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ‼️‼️‼️🚨🚨🚨 https://t.co/DC9Tkf55Vj
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
HOLY FUCKING SHIT ***THIS*** IN THE GODDAMN CLASSIFIED INDEX THAT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED FOR 9 GODDAMN YEARS **THIS** IS WHERE THEY COOKED UP THE 'CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE' HOAX THAT CREATED THE LEGAL PREDICATE COVER FOR THE ENTIRE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ‼️‼️‼️🚨🚨🚨 https://t.co/DC9Tkf55Vj
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
This is the opening 35 mins from a 9-hour subscriber series I did on the deep origins of the censorship industry, as told through the lens of a 2017 censorship planning session that cuts straight to heart of all the Blob’s dark plans that followed: https://t.co/3UKo4PumlE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence.
Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem.
The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups.
Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus.
The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield.
The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, we are going to I thought about what we would do a research stream on this week. And there's so many options about things that are happening right now. I thought about doing one on one of the videos related to the the Brazil report. But the Brazil report is really a story about the vast web of interstitial soft power institutions that situate themselves between the State Department and the CIA. So, again, whenever I you hear State Department, think CIA and Pentagon.
Whenever you hear Pentagon, think State Department and CIA. Whenever you hear CIA, think Pentagon and State Department. All three of them are together. And each of them play a different role in in the control and influence of information in a society. The State Department does overt information control through funding direct grants to institutions involved in media.
Now, we still call those free and independent media, but they are not. They are government backed media. The Pentagon is involved in information control through its psychological operations. And the Central Intelligence Agency is the underside of the state department that does inform information control and influence stories, propaganda, and now censorship work through covert activity. So you have overt activity from the State Department, psychological operations from the Pentagon, and covert activity from the Central Intelligence Agency.
Now situated between the State Department and the CIA are a vast web of what we call soft power institutions. And soft power institutions are the alternative to hard power. We have hard power, which is what governed which is what governed interstate power in the age of empire in the medieval period all the way up through the industrial age, all the way up until the end of World War two when empire was declared to come to an end. We we set up the rules based international order, And what came out of that was a new way of empire through democracy. Democracy is nominally about the hearts and minds of people, determining government rather than a military junta.
But what happens when a government doesn't do what you like? Or what happens when another when another military is threatening to you to you or your control over natural resources? And the easiest way to defeat that military is simply to regime change that country's government so that the newly installed leader can then stand down the military. Well, we created an apparatus to be able to wage soft power to be able to wage soft power war starting the late nineteen forties. So soft power is about control over hearts and minds and getting country citizen groups in other countries to manipulate enough of the other country's population to be able to ultimately control its government.
And that is essentially the story of the Brazil situation through, at the top level, three or organizations. The State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy and USAID sit in between, essentially, the State Department and the CIA. And I I bring up this history because the video we're about to watch today is from 2017. And, actually, let me just read it to you.
Maybe that's the easiest way to do this. Let me let me turn this all the way down here. D four, can democracy withstand information revolution? By the global security group, GlobSec, which is a blob entity as you can imagine. This video only has 644 views, and I'm probably about 600 of them.
I'm at least 500 of them. This was streamed live on Globsex YouTube channel on 05/27/2017. This was right in the period when the censorship industry was consensus building about its ultimate structure, the structure we live under today. I'm not gonna retrace the whole history. You guys have all hear me heard me sketch out a million times.
Even if you're new here, you'll sort of pick it up by, by osmosis. And I'm just gonna read the description. Social media are transforming the world in a much faster way than anyone could have predicted. Traditional media are being challenged by the plurality of Internet news and social networks. K?
Traditional media are being challenged by the plurality of Internet news sources and social networks. Traditional media, which was backchanneled by the CIA, State Department, and Pentagon, are being challenged by free speech on the Internet. More Internet users are relying on the abundance of unfiltered alternative media. Alternative media. Unfiltered alternative media.
That is how this group, who you'll meet in a second here, are defining the enemy, unfiltered alternative media, that often spread fake news or propaganda. Search engines and social media work with algorithms that personalize visible content, thus preventing exposure to differing views and reinforcing the confirmation bias. Research shows that populist again, there's the enemy of globalism. Populism. The popular will of the people, notwithstanding the consensus of institutions.
Research shows that populist and extremist right wing groups excel in abusing these algorithms that amplify the propaganda and spread it like a virus across the Internet. Populist propaganda spreading like a virus across the Internet, challenging the grip over hearts and minds that traditional media has. What can be done to protect Internet users from fake news, lies, and propaganda? By the way, all of this, we know this narrative well. We hear it every day now.
You did not hear it every day in 2017. This is the origin of that, this network that you're gonna meet here. What can be done to protect Internet users from fake news? Last part, how can this be done without introducing censorship and impeding freedom of speech? And you will see how quickly they abandoned the guise of not having to use censorship.
What is the role of information technology companies in the matter? To what extent do social media platforms bear responsibility for what is regarded as relevant and trustworthy information? How can we fight extremist groups, not terrorist groups? Extremists, meaning you, if you voted for Donald Trump, in the Internet battlefield, an environment that they have so successfully mastered. Well, you may be familiar with this language from esoteric academics or, wonkish, anodyne, Washington Post reporters.
But this is the topic as it was introduced in mid twenty seventeen by the following group of people. Michael Chertoff, executive chairman and founder of the Chertoff Group, chairman of BAE Systems, former secretary of DHS. He's the chairman that is the head, the man who gets to decide the president and fire the c suite, the head the boss of bosses at BAE Systems. BAE is the is the largest military contractor in Europe. They are the city of London's equivalent of Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin combined.
They completely run the British Ministry of Defense, the British military. And that our military industrial complex that we refer to in The US, in The UK, they don't have a military industrial complex, so to speak. They have BAE Systems, which is the entire military industrial Complex of The United Kingdom. Lot of great books on BAE Systems if you ever wanna read it. And he was the first full time head of the Department of Homeland Security after Tom Ridge was only on term for two years from 2003 to 2005.
Michael Chertoff was from 2005 to 2009. He's the architect of DHS. And he is in many ways one of the architects, one of the godfather architects of the censorship industry. He's a running character in this origin story and through all of the groups. He's a director at the Atlanta Council.
He he co runs the Aspen Institute's cyber working group, their censorship coordinator. He's affiliated with Brookings, frequently speaks with CSIS, all of the major universities, and all of the major government departments. From the intel agencies into DHS, where the first American censorship agency was created. And if you remember Nina Jankovic, right, Nina Jankovic, the sort of talk of the town, the sort of Harry Potter rock band girl who sung the song about who do I need to blow to make it to the top and then was slotted in as the head of the disinformation governance board, which only went down in flames because they gave it the wrong name. Do you remember who became the interim head of the disinformation governance board when Nina Jankovits was fired?
It was Michael Chertoff. Nina Jankovic came from the Wilson Center and came from this CIA British intelligence underbelly called the called the Integrity Initiative that went down in flames with leaked documents in 2018. And she's a scion of Chertoff. Chertoff was the real force behind the disinformation governance board. That's why he took over when Nina took they they they put, you know, if you want a job done right, you do it yourself.
So Michael Chertoff, you'll hear a lot more about him in in the months ahead. That's enough for now. Christopher Walker, who's the VP at the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy is the top CIA cutout in the entire arsenal of US soft power institutions. The National Endowment for Democracy was created at a time when the CIA's name was Dirt right after the right after the church committee hearings in 1975 and 1976.
Reagan, the CIA was badly weakened. Jimmy Carter had fired 30% of the operations wing of the CIA. Ronald Reagan's foreign policy staff wanted the CIA to have the fangs back that had the nineteen sixties and seventies. They couldn't pull it off politically. And so they worked with CIA director Bill Colby to set up a new CIA that would be public facing.
And they called it the National Endowment for Democracy. And explicitly, they they said the the National Endowment Bill Colby, the CIA director in 1982, petitioned the justice department and and president Reagan calling for a national it it has become discrediting when dissident groups that we back around the world are outed as being on the CIA's payroll. And so we would like to set up a national endowment for democracy promotion to to because it would be terrible if it looked like it came from the CIA. This will be a nominally firewalled off private institution funded by the US government that will do the funding of the dissident groups to promote the same activity that the CIA used to do, to promote the same activity that CIA used to do, but there will be this firewall. It won't be called an intelligence service.
It will just be a private independent entity, and it will do the work that the that the CIA used to do without the CIA's hands being dirty. And they said and and the initial debate over the National Endowment for Democracy, the the senate committee who ultimately was negotiating with with CIA director Bill Colby for it said, well, there has to be a firewall between the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy. And Bill Colby, the CIA director, pushed back on that and said, well, there really there should be a public firewall, but there there can't be a private. There can't be a total firewall because there there are CIA cutout. So but what we'll make sure is that the senate intelligence committee has approval for the for the coordinating relationship between the CIA and the NED.
And what you find is that if you wanna be on the senate intelligence committee, you are on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy or one of its subsidiaries, such as the NDI for Democrats and the IRI for Republicans. But make no mistake. The National Endowment for Democracy was created by the CIA. Both of its founders said that it was set up to do what the CIA wanted to do, but no longer had the political capital to be able to pull off. Everywhere the CIA operates, the NED operates, funding the groups that the CIA uses as assets and giving them orchestrated direction.
There is no dividing line between the NED and the CIA. The NED is the CIA. Point blank period. The NED is the CIA. So when you see social media is transforming the world in a much faster way than anyone could predict, Traditional media is being challenged by Internet news sources and social networks.
The problem is people are relying on unfiltered alternative media. Populist messaging is spreading like a virus across the Internet. That message is coming from the guy who was the architect of the disinformation governance board and the central intelligence agency. Who are the other participants that you're gonna meet in this video? This is in 2017.
Okay? The other participants in this video. Now I have I have emphasized lately something which I'd only really been focusing on in my books. I just haven't been able to really hit on it in a lot of my my work this year. But you have to understand the the seize Eurasia plan to understand the modern political climate, the modern political world.
Russia sits on 75,000,000,000,000 worth of assets. The homeland of The United States only has about 45,000,000,000,000 in total, exploitable natural resources. Russia has, again, 75,000,000,000,000. That's the largest of any country in the world. You can look this up.
Just Google Russia 75,000,000,000,000 natural resources. You'll see what I'm talking about. What's happening in Ukraine, what's happening in CEE, and you're gonna see this phrase multiple times here. CEE. CEE is a state department office, by the way.
It refers to Central And Eastern Europe. That stretch between that runs from Germany, captures both the Baltics and the Balkans. Baltics up north, Balkans down south. You know, so, you know, Finland, Sweden, you know, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and then all of the different Balkanized former Soviet states former Yugoslavia states like Serbia, Kosovo, all the way down into Greece and Turkey. And CEE is the battleground for the fight to control Eurasia.
So seize Eurasia is the master plan of the of the McKinder theory. The Zbigniew Brzezinski, the pivot point for the the grand chessboard of Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's what our entire post Cold War unipolar moment was about capturing. That began to fall apart in the mid aughts after Vladimir Putin started to reassert political influence in CEE over in Europe, principally through gas diplomacy from Gazprom because CEE was financially dependent and resource dependent on Russia. And, of course, CEE is the battleground just give me one second.
It's it's the battleground of the current Ukraine fight. But this is back in 2017, three years after the Crimea annexation and the unexpected counter coup when NATO lost control over Eastern Ukraine. And what you see here is in addition to the Central Intelligence Agency and in addition to DHS and the domestic censorship network that would come to that would that forms the backbone of CISA, the US government's first domestic social media censorship agency. You have the head of public policy. Now public policy refers to content moderation.
Speech control is folded under public policy at the at the at in social media companies, on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. So so this is the head of censorship policies for Central And Eastern Europe of Facebook in London. The head of censorship policies in Central And Eastern Europe for Google out of Poland. A state media broadcaster from London, the BBC, so that's The U that's the British government. And let's just we don't need to get into into LeadersLink here.
But understand this. The Central Intelligence Agency and Michael Chertoff, one of the arch blob monsters in the entire world now, by the way, I left off my the the Chertoff Group. The Chertoff Group was the private company that Michael Chertoff founded when he when he left DHS. The Chertoff Group is packed to the gills with CIA and state department and military high level officials. Give you an example.
What was the first job that general Michael v Hayden took when he left the Bush administration? As when Michael v Hayden was a four star general, so the highest ranking general class in our military, the head of the NSA, which is the military's CIA, and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. So that's the hat trick. Four star general, chief of the National Security Agency, NSA, and chief of the Central Intelligence Agency could do anything in the world when he leaves when he leaves that trifecta and puts down his god powers over the intelligence community and goes into the private sector. But what did he do?
He joined to become a principal. He became the second in command to Michael Chertoff. He joined the Chertoff group. That is where he still is today. So the Chertoff group, with the former head of the CIA, former head of NSA, former four star general, former head of DHS, and the Central Intelligence Agency gathered together the censorship heads of Facebook and Google in 2017 to lay down on Facebook and Google in 2017 what they needed to do to kill unfiltered alternative media and populist messaging, pro Trump messaging in The US, pro Brexit messaging in The UK, pro law and order party in Poland, pro Vox party in Spain, pro five star movement in Italy, pro AFD in Germany to, one by one, kill all of their accounts and all of their narratives on Facebook and Google and to treat it their own free speech, to treat it as though it were a virus spreading across the Internet.
Okay. That's enough of Obi says digital Gladio. Oh, my friend, when when he when we get to the in when we get to the research streams on the integrity initiative, That phrase is going to come back in a big, big, big, big way. But let's leave that aside. How's everyone doing right now?
How's the energy? Was that was that a was that a fine enough introduction? Are you guys good to jump into it now? Do you have any questions before we we jump into the actual move it watching of this? And this this is gonna take us probably two or three, frankly, watch throughs, but the next one will be next week.
Good intro? Okay. You guys are good to go? So what you're gonna see before the panel discussion plays is a montage of of is a montage that they themselves put together, that that that the panel put together. And I think that this montage is worth a breakdown going through it.
Hold on a second. Let me let me adjust this a little bit so the full thing is captured on stream. Hang tight. Is this whole thing on there now? I just don't wanna miss any yeah.
This is okay. Let's do this. Okay. Let's go. Okay.
So the first image starts with 1917. I want you for US Army. This is Uncle Sam. 1917, we enter World War one. This is the golden era.
Woodrow Wilson is president. And Woodrow Wilson is the patron the patron saint of the blob. K? Better than George Washington, better than Abe Lincoln. There's no one the blob revere more than president Woodrow Wilson, because Woodrow Wilson was the man who declared that America's role is to make the world safe for democracy.
And when you understand that democracy means blob control, and democracy promotion is how every single one of these blob creatures makes a living, that is by overthrowing foreign governments in the name of democracy, destabilizing, organizing rental riots, bribing, extorting, in the name of democracy. This is their blank slate to do that, to control governments simply by putting them through a so called democratic transition. So they start history in 1917 with Woodrow Wilson. And they're showing a US army war propaganda poster. So this is a propaganda hearts and minds to get people to support the war internally.
Because remember, the FBI was set up we had a justice department for thirty, forty years before the FBI. The FBI was set up originally, was it nineteen o eight or something? Mostly to round up anti war protesters. But that's an that's an another story. Let's keep going.
The next in their in their chart of of world history of is 1936. And this is a Nazi this is a this is a Nazi symbol over the Olympic games in 1936. Ostensibly to show how pro Nazi propaganda was winning hearts and minds to not appreciate the threat of Adolf Hitler because of how legitimizing it was to have the Nazi government represented at the Olympic games. K. So we got Goebbels, 1943, Adolf Hitler.
Now mind you. Mind you. This is the framing. Just put this back on stream. This is the framing that the CIA and the larger blob apparatus stretching from the state department, the CIA, and this and and the Pentagon are using to prime their targets at Facebook and Google and everyone watching about the rise of pro Donald Trump speech in an unfiltered way on social media.
So they are immediately the CIA and the Pentagon and the State Department are basically telling the social media companies in 2017 that you have to censor the Internet because it'll because it'll lead to an to Adolf Hitler if you don't. Nineteen sixties, Elvis is alive. Now here, they're getting into the connection between Adolf Hitlerism, Nazism, and generic conspiracies in the news. Elvis is alive. So they're drawing a straight line from, hey.
Conspiracy theories on the Internet, if you squint and look at it, are just like the great war. Nineteen seventies, more conspiracy theories. The CIA killed JFK. Invest Clinton, please investigate the coup. So this is obviously not the nineteen seventies.
This is obviously a picture from the nineteen nineties after the Oliver Stone movie, JFK came out, which caused such a public uproar in places like San Francisco that it led to the presidential assassination records board's creation in the nineteen nineties, which is how things like Operation Northwoods were declassified. Because in the nineteen nineties, there was so much evidence pouring out from books being written and from Oliver Stone's documentary on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination that it led to the declassification of a substantial amount of of JFK documents. And, again, Operation Northwoods, the joint chief of staff, plan to false flag murder Americans to create a predicate for for war with with Cuba, pretext to war, it was called, including bombing our own naval ships, blowing up our own barracks, hijacking our own airplanes, and other activities on US soil planned by our own military generals. In the memo in 1962, which was only declassified in the nineteen nineties when pressure was put from the left wing base of the of for the Clinton administration to open those up. So just a funny note they got that wrong.
But, what they are trying to do is they're trying to say, hey. People on the Internet who make up conspiracy theories about the CIA are just like Adolf Hitler and will lead to mass genocide. So we had better censor the Internet so that no conspiracy theories about the CIA are able to flourish. And once again, who is leading this discussion? The CIA.
Great gig if you can get it. Mao propaganda, Britain, China, nine eleven. Don't you know? Unfiltered information on the Internet might lead to another nine eleven. Propaganda, lies, fake news has a new battlefield.
The Internet. Now here they are explicitly. The number one thing is endorsements for Donald Trump. Again, this is the Chertoff Group with the head of the CIA, the head of the NSA, and the head of the military. And the CIA's number one operational cutout declaring in 2017 and gathering together the heads of the censorship offices at Google and Facebook that their target is to stop this from happening.
Make online support for Donald Trump or something like WikiLeaks, which embarrasses a blob favored political candidate like Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump supporters get their news from a strange media. You noticing a pattern here? Can they be any more explicit about what the CIA is telling Google and Facebook to censor in mid twenty seventeen? Can democracy withstand revolution?
And, again, they don't mean democracy because they're in democracy. They mean blob control. They mean a democracy of their own foreign policy establishment institutions, of their own institutions. The election of Donald Trump was democracy at its finest. The Brexit referendum was democracy at its finest.
But because it undermines the CIA and the military and the State Department blob structure, they are now worried that their entire control over the world from the Woodrow Wilson era to present, may crumble because of the information revolution. Now, again, this is before they would they would they would really lean into the phrases misinformation and disinformation. Notice they were still calling it propaganda and lies and fake news. They had not formalized that military disinformation language.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome the moderator of the next session. Can
Speaker 0: you guys hear this all right? Is volume all right?
Speaker 1: So good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon to our audience here in, Bratislava, and to our many viewers watching us around the world on
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
How NED Board Director Rachel Kleinfeld Pushed Censorship, Lawfare, Bankrupting Conservative Media & Total Domestic Political Control For Her Blob Friends While At NED https://t.co/eiFkb4JZGb
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Joaquin Castro was the Impeachment Manager for the Democrats. He vowed to "prevent Trump from ever occupying the presidency again." Republicans just gave Castro $315 million to give out to his friends as a director on NED's board, which manages NED's political black ops grants. https://t.co/0h6B8KpXm4
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Rep. Joaquin Castro -- who sued Trump in 2017, voted to impeach Trump twice in 2019 & 2021, supported Trump's prosecution in 2023 & used his House seat to pressure social media to censor speech -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED? https://t.co/5oVJ5uiJjn
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Rachel Kleinfeld -- who publicly led the charge to arrest Trump, mass arrest Trump supporters, bankrupt pro-Trump conservative news orgs with lawfare, and coerce social media to censor your speech -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED? https://t.co/lkOrGxjkq3
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The Carnegie Endowment is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Sure, it was run by CIA Director Bill Burns and pays salaries to CIA political hitman Eric Ciaramella and NED director Rachel Kleinfeld. But it says it's a 501(c)(3). So how can they publish an open call to "Help Democrats win" ? https://t.co/ZG8YjZHl3U
reSee.it AI Summary
As you watch, I note that mass Somali immigration to the US began in 1992 to help rebuild the exiled Somali government after it fell in civil war. That same year, the US sent troops to Somalia, supposedly to defend USAID workers delivering food.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
As you watch this, it’s worth noting that mass Somali immigration to the US started in 1992, to help rebuild the exiled Somali gov’t, which had fell in a civil war. That very year, we sent the US military to Somalia, under the pretext of defending USAID workers giving out food https://t.co/xVzvEBWJcM
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Rep. Joaquin Castro -- who sued Trump in 2017, voted to impeach Trump twice in 2019 & 2021, supported Trump's prosecution in 2023 & used his House seat to pressure social media to censor speech -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED? https://t.co/5oVJ5uiJjn
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Rachel Kleinfeld -- who publicly led the charge to arrest Trump, mass arrest Trump supporters, bankrupt pro-Trump conservative news orgs with lawfare, and coerce social media to censor your speech -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED? https://t.co/inOgbAMVNU
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Tim Kaine -- yes, that Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED? https://t.co/irKYzSe2d8
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
This Guy Is The Key To The Fedsurrection. The Sedition Hunters Flagged Him To The FBI. The FBI Never Looked For Him. Will The FBI Look For Him Now? https://t.co/yFg6gfBWi4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on a set of claims and observations about January 6 that orbit around Sedition Hunters, Ray Epps, and the so-called “Northwest Scaffold Commander.” The speakers discuss and link multiple pieces of information to argue that the FBI and other agencies were paying close attention to, or coordinating with, covert actor networks on that day.
- The discussion opens with a reference to a John Solomon article about Sedition Hunters and claims that the FBI and Justice Department paid Sedition Hunters about $150,000 to gather evidence on January 6 protesters to help the FBI make arrests. They note the figure was reported as over $100,000 in some places and $150,000 in a House hearing, and they say the FBI/DOJ paid Sedition Hunters, the SPLC, the ADL, the Atlantic Council, DFR Lab, and Bellingcat for intelligence.
- The main focus shifts to a piece titled Meet Ray Epps (December 2021) by the speakers’ interlocutor, where they argue that the “main star of the show” was not Ray Epps, but a different figure labeled Northwest Scaffold Commander (referred to as Scaffold Commander). They emphasize that Sedition Hunters’ archives identified Scaffold Commander as their number-one suspect, although he was not placed on the FBI’s most-wanted list.
- They recount how, on January 8, 2021, the FBI’s most-wanted list listed Ray Epps as a top suspect in the case, with public calls for information and a cash reward. By late June 2021, a Phoenix newspaper identified him as “Reyes,” and on July 1, 2021, the FBI removed Epps from the wanted list with no explanation and no arrest. They contrast this with Scaffold Commander, who was never added to the FBI’s public wanted list for identification by the public, despite being the focal point of Sedition Hunters’ investigations.
- The speakers describe Scaffold Commander as an older man with glasses, a nerdy mask, and a blue cap, who allegedly directed the breach from the Northwest scaffold overlooking the Capitol. They claim he used a bullhorn to issue commands for approximately 18 minutes to an hour and a half, from 1:00 PM to about 2:30 PM, urging the crowd with phrases like “Move forward,” “Don’t just stand there,” “Help somebody over the wall,” and “We gotta fill up the capital.”
- They juxtapose these observations with the chronology of the breach: the first breach around 12:53 PM, the crowd’s advance toward the Capitol, and the moment rioters entered the building. They argue Scaffold Commander acted as a ringleader and that Ray Epps was directly beneath him in the crowd, effectively functioning as an internal participant who helped draw people toward the front.
- A key point they stress is that Scaffold Commander’s high perch and commanding role align with a long-cited CIA manual from 1983, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, which describes a small cadre of crowd agitators operating from elevated positions to direct slogans and crowd movement. They quote and reference passages describing an “outside commando element” that stays above the crowd to observe and direct a demonstration, using high observation points to shout instructions and guide the crowd’s actions.
- The speakers argue that the FBI has not acknowledged Scaffold Commander, has not included him on any public list, and has not publicly solicited identification for him, despite Sedition Hunters’ focus on him as the pivotal organizer. They suggest that internal FBI records, memos, or emails about Scaffold Commander could be highly revealing, potentially showing whether higher-ups instructed not to pursue him.
- They conclude by urging the FBI and related investigators to search their internal records for “Northwest Scaffold Commander” and make any relevant documents public, implying that such records could undermine the official narrative of the event. They also frame the existence of an internal, externally guided command structure as a critical piece of the January 6 story that remains underexplored by authorities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. So the first thing that came to mind was a John Solomon article. He texted me this. J six sedition hunters. You guys probably saw this.
That it was, like, a $150,000 that the FBI and justice department paid to the sedition hunters group to gather evidence on January 6
Speaker 1: protesters to help the FBI make arrests.
Speaker 0: But I saw this. So they said more than a 100,000 here, but in congress today, in the in the house hearing, they said a $150,000. And I saw this, and I went,
Speaker 1: you son of a bitch. You know, you you knew this was
Speaker 0: the case. I mean, the FBI, DOJ was paying the SPLC, their the ADL, the Atlantic Council, DFR Lab, Bellingcat, everyone who was collecting intelligence. But the fact that it's the sedition hunters makes this you know, it was super viral after I initially published it, but since the Trump admin took office, seems to have gone pretty I thought this article would kind of have an organic resurgence. It's one I've talked about many times. It was this meet Ray Epps part two one that I
Speaker 1: did with Darren. And when I was doing the research for this piece,
Speaker 0: The main star of the show was not really Ray Epps in my view, even though Ray Epps
Speaker 1: was a very high profile visually salient figure. This was in December 2021.
Speaker 0: It's called Meet Ray Epps. Stamming new details expose massive web of unindicted operators at the heart of January 6. And I remember so vividly as I was collecting my database, because I was to collect the evidence for this piece, I did not go to MAGA media. I went to the sedition hunters' archives. And it was the sedition hunters who evidently were on the payroll of the FBI, a $150,000 at that time.
Their number one suspect was not Ray Epps. Their number one suspect was a guy they called Northwest Scaffold Commander.
Speaker 1: I just called him Scaffold Commander for short. We'll we'll get we'll get this this guy.
Speaker 0: I didn't even make this infographic. I I took it from sedition hunters.
Speaker 1: Now the reason this is so interesting, this new piece of news, is I'm gonna I'm just gonna pull up this image real quick. I did make this one.
Speaker 0: So this was one of the very strange events that I think altered the history of the telling of January 6, which is that on 01/08/2021, in the FBI's wanted list for wanted January 6 suspects, they put Ray Epps on there right away as a key suspect in the case. They want to track down who is this guy. The FBI wanted to know. We wanna know his name so we can haul his ass to jail, make an example of him. That was on January 8, just two days after.
I I went into the way back machine for all this. 01/08/2021, he was a top suspect on their most wanted list for January 6. They put out multiple calls, tweets that put Ray Epps right in the crosshairs.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Diane, yes. FBI is seeking public assistance, and they put Ray Epps right here.
Speaker 0: They put, again, seeking information. Find this man. Ray Epps is right here. They matched it straight from the source video. Train passing by if there's a little bit of noise.
They offered a cash reward for for anyone who could identify him. And then a funny thing happened. In late June, a local newspaper in Phoenix, Arizona identified him as Reyes. And instead of being arrested,
Speaker 1: the FBI did a very strange thing on 07/01/2021. They removed him. He was suspect number 16 in a list of 486 most wanted criminals for protesting election fraud.
Speaker 0: Poof. He was just gone. They did on 07/01/2021. They suddenly delete Epps from the database after press exposure. No arrest.
No explanation given. The US Attorney General refused to answer questions about it. And FBI agents in Phoenix, Arizona all deny knowledge that Epps even exists.
Speaker 1: When the feds came for Kyle, someone Kyle in Arizona, Says this about Ray Epps? He said, wait. Who is that?
Speaker 0: But then we intensified the media pressure through Revolver, and finally, they had to it escalated to Tucker Carlson and Fox, and then it escalated to Congress, and then that saga played out the way it did. But the whole time, was telling Darren,
Speaker 1: you know what's the most insane thing, Darren, about this whole saga? The scaffold commander is not even on the FBI most wanted list. They never asked the public to identify scaffold commander.
Speaker 0: And as you're about to see, this was the number one target of the sedition hunters. It became my number one target.
Speaker 1: And at least with Ray Epps, they had the dignity, shall I say, for the op that it was. They
Speaker 0: at least asked the public to try to identify him.
Speaker 1: But Epps was not the most visible person that day, unidentified to this day. That person went by the hashtag Northwest scaffold commander.
Speaker 0: Let me show you what I what I mean by this. Let's get into this now.
Speaker 1: So this guy I'm just gonna read a little
Speaker 0: bit from what I wrote. I mean, they
Speaker 1: put this woman on the
Speaker 0: FBI most wanted list, suspect three forty two,
Speaker 1: but not the guy you're about to see. Perched right across from fence cutter Bulwark, who
Speaker 0: was another one of these unidentified guys. He was
Speaker 1: the one who was cutting these fences before
Speaker 0: the breach. At 12:31PM, remember the breach, we're told, was to stop the 1PM ratification of the election, certification of the election by congress. That proceeding started 1PM. The initial
Speaker 1: breach happened at 12:53PM of the outside Penn Walkway entrance. Now half hour before, 12:31PM, waiting at the entrance to the Penn Wall to the Penn Walkway entrance, half hour before the breach,
Speaker 0: this was this guy right here was fence cutter bulwark, the guy who would cut down these fences. This is him. This is fence cutter bulwark. Again, I didn't make this infographic either. I got it from sedition hunters who was feeding all this info to the FBI.
Fence cutter bulwark was cutting all these fences to clear the way for the protesters. Here he is in action. See, he's rolling up these fences.
Speaker 1: Very business like. What I'm getting at here is you see him rolling up these fences. And in this very business like matter, just taking them all down so that people can get up to the capital. He
Speaker 0: was there a half hour early. The screenshot again is at 12:31. But right next to him, on the same bench waiting
Speaker 1: for the arrival of the cavalry, was scaffold commander.
Speaker 0: Here's what I wrote. Don't let looks deceive you. This extremely peculiar middle aged man with glasses, a nerdy mask, and a blue ball cap has been assigned more notoriety by deep researchers than arguably any other person of
Speaker 1: the thousands they have indexed. Namely, the sedition hunters who are on
Speaker 0: the payroll of the FBI, meaning everything they were
Speaker 1: compiling about scaffold commander, presumably the FBI was compiling or was being sent, and
Speaker 0: yet they never even added him to the wanted list to ask other people to help identify. Scaffold commander's frenetic whirlwind of activities and apparent role as the ringleader of the breach have made him the subject of rush gate level rumor and speculation that he was privy to a January 6 master plan. Here's what sedition hunters wrote about him. Early and ongoing insider and director of Mob taunts police from outside of Wall early on, climbs up the Northwest scaffold approximately 1PM, closely directs and incites the crowd with a bullhorn on top of the scaffold for at least eighteen minutes. It would turn out to be, I think, about an hour and a half.
I think it wasn't until 02:30 that he, and the and the breech was already successful that he backed down. Adidas backpack jacket with first serve were similar on back recorded on several videos. First serve. So some sort of service. Military service, emergency fire services, some sort of service.
Speaker 1: This is his mug. We'll just call
Speaker 0: him scaffold commander for short. He gets his name from being the ostensible commander of the prominent media tower that overlooked the capital's back terrace on January 6. You've probably seen this tower in pictures. It's the tall temporary structure built in November 2020, two months ahead of time. Remember November 2020 is when Mark Milley, then head of the Joint Chiefs, talked with Gina Haspel, the head of the CIA, about something need to be done to stop the right wing coup afoot.
So that moment, this tall structure was built so that media ostensibly so that media crews could properly film the January twenty twenty one inauguration ceremony. Here's what it looks like without people around. Boom. Right in front, like a command center. And actually, if you cross match this with the 1983 psychological operations in guerrilla warfare manual, it specifically says when organizing a riot, try to get a tall perch.
It says in here in this document that there should be a commander type figure who can tell the crowd what slogans to wave. I'll ask Chatchipiti to find or Grok or something to find the exact page number. Let me let me just do that to make it make it simple rather than searching the 70 page document. We'll give Grock a shot at this. Find me the passage in the 1983 psychological operations man in guerrilla warfare CIA manual that discuss having an operative in the crowd to direct a crowd with slogans, high perch, to see if Grok can do the trick on that.
We'll come back to that. And here's what it looked like on January 6 with scaffold commander and his crew controlling it. You can see here he is with this bullhorn. From all the way back, you can see and hear him. This tower is the most perfect command post that anyone seeking to monitor and direct the capital crowd could possibly hope for.
It stands front and center, everyone can see it, and the man high topic can see and scream down to all. One can only imagine the damage a highly aggressive and monomaniacally focused breach leader could do from this perch if he had zero scruples, a plan to attack the capital, and an extremely loud megaphone. And here, you see scaffold commander being profiled by the Washington Post. Somehow, the Washington Post wanted this guy more than the FBI did. FBI never even put him on the list to help have the crowd help identify.
If you've seen any midday January six footage, you've probably seen scaffold commander in action without knowing it. From high atop the tower between 1PM to 02:30PM, scaffold commander issued the iconic bellows and nonstop commands that are loud and clear on almost every video clip from January 6 filmed in that time interval. For nearly ninety minutes straight, he bombards the crowd, the otherwise leaderless crowd, below him with endless variations on a single instruction. Don't just stand there. Keep moving forward.
Here's just one sample of that. All the way back, you hear this guy saying, move forward. Move forward. Don't just stand there. Help somebody over the
Speaker 1: wall. Here's another one. Actually, let me just continue with the narration, then we'll keep playing videos.
Speaker 0: But once the crowd had continuously moved forward for over an hour and the very first handful of rioters entered the building, scaffold commander suddenly threw the switch. Okay. We're in. We're in. Come on.
We gotta fill up the capital. Come on. Come now. We need help. We gotta fill up the capital.
They got in. So Rayaps was not the only person who seemed
Speaker 1: to have this premeditated plan on video to get everyone to fill in the to go into the capital. The guy with the loudest megaphone the entire day standing front and center was telling everyone exactly that. Alright. The clue this
Speaker 0: clip below is Checkmate. It should make scaffold commander one of the top criminal suspects on the entire FBI capital most wanted list. Spoiler alert, he isn't even on the list. No charges have been filed, the FBI today still never acknowledged his existence.
Speaker 2: Come
Speaker 1: that blood curdling scream.
Speaker 0: Not just when we have to fill up the capital. We have to fill it up.
Speaker 1: What purpose does that achieve? We have fill up the capital.
Speaker 0: We just need more bodies in there. Help someone over the wall. Come
Speaker 1: now. We need help. That kind of language, we need help, almost makes people who don't necessarily wanna go into the
Speaker 0: capital be like, okay. Well, someone's in need. Someone needs help. Now mind you, he's already committed criminal trespassing according to the charges levied that day. Once you've gone past the out the Penn Walkway perimeter, and you've now you're now onto the lawn, and this thing is right in front of the Capitol, it's well beyond the lawn, You have committed, at the very least, criminal trespassing according to the hundreds of people who were charged with simply step stepping foot on the lawn, and this is well past the lawn.
For perspective, it's important to step into the shoes of January 6 rally goers to see just how dominant and pervasive scaffold commanders influence was over the crowd psychology the entire time. Rally goers could hear as confident and constant commands with total clarity all the way back at the entrance to the Capitol Lawn. For new entrants arriving at the Capitol Grounds, scaffold commander's voice would be the first and loudest voice they heard. Scaffold commander even mixed in damsel in distress type appeals, so new arrivals were would perceive that moving forward would be doing their part to rescue innocent Trump supporters who need your help. So this is all the way back on the lawn.
Now this itself, the FBI indicted hundreds of people simply for stepping foot on
Speaker 1: the lawn. Well in front is scaffold commander as soon as
Speaker 0: you step foot on the lawn. His voice is the first one you heard. I'll just play this.
Speaker 3: Somebody in the back over here keeps shouting push forward.
Speaker 0: Now this was the guy's sedition hunters in their own blogs fingered as the ringleader of January 6, and the FBI never even sought him, never even asked the public to identify him. Here's a Twitter thread, I wonder if this is still active, that goes through a bunch of things on scaffold commander that are kind of interesting. Another attendee who was later arrested said he was just following the instructions of the man with a bullhorn yelling patriots, move forward. That would be the that would be scaffold commander, but the FBI refuses to mention the tower commander with a giant bullhorn telling everyone to fill up the capital for ninety minutes straight. That was Stacy Hager of Texas.
He's accused of scaling the wall. And he said he was just following the instructions of the person with the with the bullhorn. But they never even asked to identify that person. This piece goes on. I'll link it here below.
The point that I'm driving at is I would love for the FBI, for Cash Patel, and whoever's leading the January 6 ongoing investigation to search their internal records for everything about scaffold commander. What I'm saying is it's basically impossible, given sedition hunters focus on scaffold commander for the FBI to have not done any internal search
Speaker 1: about this figure, not had any internal assessment memos, analysis memos, emails to identify the person who the peep the people they were paying said was the
Speaker 0: ringleader that day. Now I suspect what happened was this person was military or ex military, and either a Fed or talked into it by a Fed, and the FBI did not want to pursue going after him because it would reveal the Fed's direction.
Speaker 1: That's what both my fear and my instinct says. The fact is,
Speaker 0: what could prove or what could validate or falsify that hypothesis are the internal records of the FBI. What inflow did they receive from sedition hunters about scaffold commander? Is there an email thread where some higher up at the FBI tells someone in the rank and file, don't put this person on the wanted list? If that email exists, it's a fucking bombshell. And it's quite possible that it does.
My fear is I don't think the FBI has looked.
Speaker 1: I published this five years ago. I didn't really start talking about it again till about a year ago. So FBI, if you're listening, search your internal records for Northwest Scaffold Commander. Everything related to the tower on January 6, and make it public for us to see. Okay.
Someone said to go
Speaker 0: back to Brock. Yeah. Let's see if they found it. Okay. Yes.
Okay. The relevant passages from the 1983 manual, psychological operations in guerrilla warfare appear in the section titled control of mass concentrations in meetings. These describe the strategic use of small groups of trained agitators to infiltrate and manipulate crowds during demonstrations, creating the appearance of a larger spontaneous protest. This includes deploying elements for for observation from elevated positions and using rallying cries to direct crowd behavior. Let's just read it.
Mass meetings. I'll put the link here if you guys wanna see. Psychological operations in guerrilla warfare. You go down to mass control of mass meetings. The control of mass meetings in support of guerrilla warfare is carried out in support of guerrilla warfare, is carried out internally through a covert commando element.
Bodyguards, messengers, shock groups, incident initiators, incident initiators like Ray Epps, scaffold commander, poster carriers used to give signals and slogan shouters, all under the control of the external commando element. When the cadres are placed in or recruited from organizations such as labor unions, youth groups, agricultural groups, professional associations, they'll begin to manipulate the group's objectives. The psychological apparatus of our movement by means of these internal cadres will prepare a mental attitude, which at the crucial moment could become involved in a fury of justified violence. This can be carried out through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses, who have the mission of agitating, giving the impression there are many of them. They have great popular support using the tactics of 200, 300 agitators.
One can create a demonstration which 10,000 to 20,000 could take part. Then it goes on to talk about the specific placement of the agitators outside commando. See if we can find it on the page here. So remember, it says that the outside commando element is who is controlling the crowd. Shouters of slogans, everything under the control of the outside commando element.
Outside commando element. This element stays out of all activity, located so that they can observe from where they are the development of the planned events. So these are highly trained mass agitators to get innocent persons to bring about an apparent spontaneous demonstration. This outside commando element, they stay out of the thick of it,
Speaker 1: not in the crowd like Ray Epps. They are above the crowd. They should look for the tower of a church, a high building, a
Speaker 0: high tree, the highest level of the
Speaker 1: stadium, or any other high place. This is from the CIA's own manual in 1983. This command element that directs the masses should find a high observation point,
Speaker 0: a high building, a high tree, a high place, a high point of observation from which to shout and direct things from. Who occupied the high central place that did every single thing the CIA manual told them to do? Well, it was the number one suspect of the FBI paid sedition hunters. Here here it is, motherfucker. Here's your high building, high point of observation, high place.
It's right here doing all the things that the CIA says in its own training manual that its own highly paid agitator should do, directing the entire crowd so much so that people in their own defense pleadings after getting arrested said, was just following this guy's orders.
Speaker 1: And the FBI never even looks for
Speaker 0: And this FBI has not, to my knowledge, even looked into that. Isn't that crazy? The slogans are really simple. They're three words. We are hungry.
We want bread. What were they what was he saying here? Move forward. We need help.
Speaker 1: We need help. Three words.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: We're in.
Speaker 2: We gotta fill up the capital. Come on. Come on. Come on. Need help.
We're gonna fill up the capital. They got in. Come on.
Speaker 0: They got in.
Speaker 4: Move forward.
Speaker 0: They got in. We need help.
Speaker 1: Move forward. Keep it simple, stupid. Now
Speaker 0: this is the kind of Ray Epps scaffold commander duo. Ray Epps spent most of his time after the initial perimeter breach right underneath scaffold commander. This is what I was saying to Darren was this outside commando, inside commando structure that the CIA itself uses in astroturf riots. The inside element remains within the multitude of the crowd, placards and and signs. Well, who was right underneath in the thick of the crowd here?
It was Ray Epps. Keep the focus.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter. Yes. It does. That's not why we're here. That's not why we're here.
Listen. You can't focus on too many. Our seats. Our enemies not Base one. Americans.
Our
Speaker 0: enemy is the capital. If someone says, why?
Speaker 3: Based on the American our enemy is the capital. Someone
Speaker 0: Someone says, says, why? Why is the why is the capital our enemy?
Speaker 3: The people pulling the strings. You're fucking retarded. You're counter put out the door. How old are you?
Speaker 2: Got you.
Speaker 0: The enemy is our capital. Like, what? But where was he the whole time? He's practically underneath the command capital, just arm's length away. And I yeah.
Here we go. Alright.
Speaker 4: Here right now. So we're choking up a little bit. If that wasn't enough, just the emotion of being here with all these patriots, the real story.
Speaker 0: CS Ray Epps right next to him. At the front of the crowd, the very front of the crowd, right underneath the observation tower, where scaffold commander will begin shouting the instructions.
Speaker 4: You can see them coming from the direction of the National Mon of National Mall, Washington Monument, full of people coming down constitution, coming
Speaker 0: That's that's Ray Epps in the yellow dialogue. I made this clip in Adobe.
Speaker 4: Pennsylvania scaling the towers that were meant for the inauguration. The American people are tired, fed up. They feel they've cheated, and we're gonna find out if they're right.
Speaker 3: Good to be on the right side of history.
Speaker 2: Fuck yeah. So
Speaker 1: he's arm's length away from the command tower. That will be the main point. So you have this you have literally this internal, external command element, someone telling the frat because what Epps was doing is he was telling everyone to come up to the front of the crowd.
Speaker 0: He says, up to the steps and stay there.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna play all these clips because Rumble is gonna, you know, be an asshole about it. But he's literally telling everyone to come right up to the front of the steps, while scaffold commander is yelling, move forward with a bullhorn. You have your internal and external commando element.
Speaker 0: Grabs is literally dressed like a commando.
Speaker 1: And scaffold commander had the first serve quasi military, you know, slogan on. And here you see scaffold commander pushing through the fences.
Speaker 0: Does this look like a dude? This does not look like, you know, a young mindless this dude looks like he's in his forties or early fifties.
Speaker 1: Look at this. Look at that. Look at that chunky butt.
Speaker 0: Dude looks like he's, you know, he's gonna crap his khakis.
Speaker 1: Not exactly your typical mindless rioter. $10 from DSJ five zero five. Mike, what makes
Speaker 0: you think they don't know who Scaffold Commander is? I 'm saying the opposite, DSJ. I'm saying I think that the same folks who planned the Fed's erection knew scaffold commander was being trained for this task and deliberately killed any investigation into him the same way they killed any investigation into the pipe bomber.
Speaker 1: But I think this FBI has been focused on tracking down the pipe bomber and has lost focus on tracking down the key ringleader of the actual event at the capital. That makes sense? Here he is.
Speaker 0: What a great face. Loud. Ah.
Speaker 1: Looks unhinged. They never said help identify this man. They never used any facial recognition.
Speaker 0: They never tracked that person's cell phone ping.
Speaker 1: Micro targeted to the cell to the to the tower. For one reason or another, they did not want
Speaker 0: us to know who this person is. And given that this was the person most directly involved in coordinating people to go forward once they arrived at the protest, and then go up to the Capitol and then into the Capitol. If you crack this person's identity and this person's a Fed, that's
Speaker 1: that's the end of the insurrection narrative. You have the Fedsurrection in a pretty little bow. Game over right there. So FBI,
Speaker 0: you've got those cell phone pings, and you can micro target it to a five foot by five foot radius right there at at the command tower. You may get your man.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
More NED Files. NED is instructed to fund groups and projects after "consultations with intelligence sources" to "identify" who should get the money. So see! It's not CIA funding! It's just a totally independent NGO, giving a totally independent grant, after consulting the CIA! https://t.co/WBswSLxt73
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Yet another internal NED file stressing the importance of lying to you, so you falsely believe NED is an NGO rather than a covert action tool of the US government https://t.co/4C1q5sk71N
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
In light of this unholy alliance between CIA covert action & private sector profiteering, this early NED file is telling: NED's covert action would earn a "return on investment" for private funders, & otherwise illegal gov't acts could be farmed out for the private sector to do https://t.co/JTnSgRRAHt
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m noting that the posts allege Rachel Kleinfeld sits on NED’s board, with claims she targets Trump supporters and censors speech. They cite her 2022 “5 Strategies” white paper on halting Trumpism, and say she’s on Protect Democracy’s board, which ran TIP about overturning the 2020 result. They also reference Tim Kaine’s NED board membership and a piece linking J6 plots to a June 2020 secret meeting.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Did you know that Rachel Kleinfeld -- who publicly led the charge to arrest Trump, mass arrest Trump supporters, bankrupt pro-Trump conservative news orgs with lawfare, and coerce social media to censor your speech -- is, right now, as we speak, on the board of directors at NED?
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
From Rachel Kleinfeld's "5 Strategies" white paper, which was cited by Norm Eisen & major Blob nodes ahead of greenlighting the first Trump prosecution. Her influential 2022 piece was on how to kill Trumpism forever & stop his base from ever winning again https://web.archive.org/web/20220915223727/https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/15/five-strategies-to-support-u.s.-democracy-pub-87918
Five Strategies to Support U.S. Democracy
American democracy is at a dangerous inflection point. The moment requires a step-change in strategy and support.
web.archive.org
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Rachel Kleinfeld is also on the board of Protect Democracy, which ran the notorious Transition Integrity Project (TIP) that did the insane coup planning exercise on how to overturn the 2020 election using street riots if there was a "Clear Trump Win" https://t.co/JYjnfF1DuV
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The Political Affairs bureau of the State Dept is its most CIA branch. The JFK Files listed 48% of State Dept Political Affairs staff as CIA under cover. Bill Burns was head of Political Affairs then became CIA chief. Victoria Nuland was head of Political Affairs & is now at NED https://t.co/eG4VnSeWwK
Video Transcript AI Summary
On JFK’s inauguration day, 48% of all State Department political-section employees were not actually State Department employees at all; they were CIA operatives under diplomatic cover. While parked at a US embassy, they did not answer within the State Department chain of command and acted as covert operatives for organized political warfare conducted by the CIA. Because they dominated the political section, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the State Department did not want to overthrow a regime but the CIA did, the CIA could use the embassy’s political-section bandwidth to contact dissident groups, run money to them, provide logistical support, connect them, and run a parallel operation without observing the White House National Security Council chain of command. The speaker gave examples where in some embassies 80% of the political affairs staff were CIA, not State Department at all.
The speaker then notes Joe Biden’s CIA director as Bill Burns, describing Burns as a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. It is asserted that in the 1990s Burns was the head of the political section for the US embassy in Russia, and that Burns “never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he’d be handed the reins to be the CIA director.” The speaker emphasizes that Burns was a State Department figure the whole time, serving as the head of the political affairs section, and questions where he was positioned “at state” when he was the head of the political affairs section.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the day of JFK's inauguration, 48% of all State Department, quote, employees in the political section were not actually State Department employees at all. They were CIA under diplomatic cover. While they were parked at a US embassy, they did not answer in the chain of command within the State Department. They were covert operatives for organized political warfare being carried out by the CIA. But because they dominated the political section of the State Department, they could set their own political policy for the country.
If the State Department did not wanna overthrow that regime, but the CIA did, then the CIA could simply use the bandwidth of the political section of the embassy to make contact with the various dissident groups, to run money to them, to help them logistically, to connect them, and run a parallel operation without it observing the typical White House National Security Council chain of command. And he gave examples where he said in some embassies, 80% of the political affairs staff are CIA, not even state department at all. In fact, who was Joe Biden's CIA director? Bill Burns. What was Bill Burns before he became head of the CIA?
A buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. Well, yes. In the nineteen nineties, Bill Burns was the head of the political section for the US embassy in Russia. Bill Burns, we're told, never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he'd be he was handed the reins to be the CIA director. Mhmm.
Right? He was a state department guy the whole time. But where was he at state? He was the head of the political affairs section.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
@elonmusk $1.4 billion already given to migrant trails this yr from USAID + State Dept's "Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration," shipping cash to inbound migrants from 248 NGOs. The lion's share of the UN's $1.6 billion goal is funded by us. Marco Rubio will need to shut this down. https://t.co/szdiBzG8jQ
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
CIA Cocaine Trade In Venezuela & Colombia Complicates Maduro Charges https://t.co/HhAQZFQ3Vm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Grant and Mike Benz discuss alleged U.S. and CIA involvement in drug trafficking connected to Venezuela and the implications for prosecuting Nicolas Maduro.
- Maduro indictment history: The DOJ superseded its 2020 drug trafficking indictment of Nicolas Maduro in 2025. The conversation references the Bay of Piglets failed operation to capture Maduro in 2019 and the 2020 indictment linked to Jordan Goudreaux’s Silvercorp private mercenary firm. The discussion frames this within a broader Cold War context of U.S. actions in Latin America.
- CIA and drug trafficking link: The speakers claim the “Cartel of the Suns” (Cartel of the Suns) was a CIA cartel. They state two Venezuelan military brigadier generals who started the Cartel of the Suns were on the CIA payroll. They reference a 1993 confrontation where the head of the DEA resigned in protest after the CIA allegedly greenlit the deliberate importation of 1,500 kilos of cocaine from Venezuela into the U.S. They allege the CIA and DOJ later granted immunity to Venezuelan military officials involved in the operation. This is presented as pre-Hugo Chávez era activity in the 1990s.
- Broader historical pattern: The discussion situates these actions within a long-running pattern across the 20th century—U.S. support for pro-American groups (insurgent, rebel, or militia-type entities) funded by drug proceeds. They compare this to past episodes in Afghanistan (Mujahideen, warlords) and to narcotics and intelligence collaborations in South America (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela). The speakers draw a parallel to a Noriega-style “smash and grab,” noting Noriega’s trial revealed decades of CIA association and payroll.
- Implications for Maduro prosecution: Mike Benz suggests the case could be complicated because many allegations about Maduro are “thinly sourced” and relate to minor Venezuelan officials rather than Maduro directly. He notes that many points of evidence are tangential and question whether Maduro’s leadership directly sanctioned drug operations, despite the indictment labeling him as head of the Cartel of the Suns multiple times. The Bush family connections and historic CIA involvement are mentioned to illustrate the complexity of attributing direct responsibility.
- Stabilization and funding argument: Benz outlines a three-part stabilization plan for Venezuela—stabilization, privatization, and transition. He describes stabilization as “hearts and minds work,” which in practice involves paying off military, civil society, and business leaders with cash. He cites the CIA’s reported $70,000,000 in drug-money bribes used to influence such actors in stabilization campaigns in Afghanistan and analogous actions in Latin America.
- Closing notes: Grant appreciates Benz’s insights and asks where to follow him. Benz directs listeners to X (Twitter) at @mikebencyber, and also mentions YouTube and Rumble.
- Notable names: Nicolas Maduro, Jordan Goudreaux, the Silvercorp firm, the Cartel of the Suns, Noriega, the head of the DEA who resigned in 1993, and George H. W. Bush’s historical CIA involvement are referenced to frame claims.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wouldn't have even realized this if I wasn't following my buddy on social media who's constantly coming up with stuff that literally makes my jaw drop. I'm talking about former state department employee and executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. Mike Benz is back with us. Mike, it's great to have you on.
Speaker 1: Great to see you, Grant.
Speaker 0: Mike, explain this connection to me. I mean, could this still be going on? Does this pose a problem for prosecuting Maduro if the CIA is involved with running drugs out of Venezuela?
Speaker 1: Well, we know it caused a problem for the DOJ because they superseded their indictment in 2025. The indictment for drug trafficking against Nicolas Maduro, was a 2020 indictment, shortly after the failed Bay of Piglets operation to capture Maduro the first time in 2019 through Jordan Goudreaux's Silver Corp private mercenary firm. That that was the segment that you just played in the run up to this. He's now being prosecuted himself. But effectively, what you had was an uncomfortable history throughout the Cold War in in the twentieth century under substantially Republican leadership.
This is bipartisan, but this is what makes the story difficult, I think, for a lot of conservatives to come to grips with. And then we saw it again in Afghanistan during the during the Bush era. But the narcotics play an important role just like USA does in supporting pro American, pro democracy, so called forces, insurgent groups, rebel groups, cartels, gangs, militias that are the the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If we just like we worked with Afghan warlords and used the drug proceeds on the, effectively, the Golden Crescent to fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets, and then to fund various Afghan warlords against the, in the counterinsurgency against the Taliban in Afghanistan, The same thing played out throughout the entire twentieth century, starting in the late nineteen fifties throughout South America, centralized around Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela. And in the nineteen nineties, what you're referring to is the origin point of the so called Cartel of the Sons, which in the original indictment of of Maduro listed him indicted him as being the head of the the Cartel of the Sons 32 times in that indictment they mentioned Cartel of the Sons.
This was something the admin ran on right up until the moment they indicted Maduro. The problem is the cartel of the sons was a CIA cartel. The two brigadier brigade generals in the Venezuelan military started the Cartel of the Suns were both on CIA payroll. And the the entire in 1993, things came to a head when the head of the DEA the the head of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency resigned in protest after the CIA ran over the DEA and greenlit the deliberate importation of 1,500 kilos of cocaine from Venezuela to be sold on the streets of Miami to US citizens. And and then the CIA threatened, the, case officer to to, that he would be charged if he talked to the press about it.
And then the CIA worked with the DOJ to grant immunity to the Venezuelan military officials in the nineteen nineties who, who were on the Venezuela National Guard, Venezuelan military side of this operation. That was all pre Hugo Chavez's 1998, communist socialist turn. So the problem is is it is the the best analogy here is COVID. It is true that the Wuhan Institute of Virology played this very nasty role in what appears to be a lab leak. But the the line that it came from China and it's all China masks the fact that DARPA put out a a request for proposals for a fern cleavage insight, injection into a SARS COVID nineteen coronavirus, and that it was our government, the USAID, who paid the one institute of virology $15,000,000 for this work and that the CIA met with Ralph Barack.
And the problem is if you hinge your whole thing on it being a Venezuela thing, you're you're you're basically setting up somebody else for our own deep states crimes.
Speaker 0: Alright. So you you you answered many of the questions I was gonna ask you. So I mean and maybe I sound naive when I was gonna ask you, would the CIA knowingly import cocaine into The United States? You answered that question. They would.
And and I guess it's for money. What how were they using this money? Were they using it for a power play as well with with the drugs? And and how do they hide it from lawmakers?
Speaker 1: You this is what stabilization entails. You you heard this three part plan laid out for Venezuela. Step you know, it's gonna be stabilization, and then it's gonna be, you know, privatization, and then it'll be a a transition. Well, stabilization involves hearts and minds work is what we famously call it. But what it's really hearts and minds and cash.
What it involves is paying off a substantial part of what will be the Venezuelan military structure, civil society, business leaders. And to pay someone off, you need the cash for it. And in these countries, in South America, as we did in Afghanistan in Afghanistan, the CIA handed out $70,000,000 worth of drug money bribes in order to do this. And by the way, this all goes back to this this has been modeled as a Noriega style smash and grab. Noriega, the trial played out the same way.
It turned out that when we took Noriega into custody after a military invasion of Panama and arrested him for narcotics trafficking, it came out that for thirty one years he had been on CIA payroll because he was useful to the CIA and the US military for the right wing to to prop up the governments there. I think this case is going to be very, very interesting to follow.
Speaker 0: Alright. So real quick. The good news is we did convict Noriega. And even with all these ties, which seems to be so similar to everything going on with Maduro, but I imagine Maduro's defense team's gonna walk in and is gonna say, hey. He was working with the CIA.
He was, you know, he was directly being paid by the CIA. How are you gonna prosecute him when the government was doing this? Is that gonna be their argument real quick if you can for me, Mike?
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to argue that Maduro was working with the CIA, but I think what they're going to do is they're going to look at the the points of evidence, which was, I'm sorry to say, but it's very thinly sourced. The the these are all very, very tangential allegations, which basically relate to minor side characters for the most part in the Venezuelan government. And simply saying because he was the head of state, he must have he must have blessed this in some direct sense. But even these many of these are strange. The indictment lists this 2006 flight, which has strange ties to a close associate of Jeb Bush And, you know, understand the Bush family.
George h w Bush was the CIA director and played an interesting role in the BCCI Bank Development that was the CIA's bank for narcotics trafficking in the nineteen eighties, which incidentally funneled $35,000,000 of cash to Manuel Noriega.
Speaker 0: Wow. Well, I'll tell you what, Mike Benz. If anybody can uncover all this stuff, it's gonna be you. Please keep me posted on this. I'm always fascinated when you come on.
You got stuff that nobody else is talking about, and I urge people to check you out on social media. Where can they find you?
Speaker 1: Find me on x at mike bencyber, also on YouTube and Rumble.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
SAT was a CIA airline used to ship guns. In 1991, the CIA-backed Somali govt fell to a civil war. In 1993, Bush tried to tilt the civil war w/ Operation Restore Hope using Rickenbacker Air Base in Columbus OH. In 1994, SAT moved to Rickenbacker to serve Jeffrey Epstein's company https://t.co/USN71oXLLG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein negotiated the contract to move the CIA's proprietary airliner, Southern Air Transport, which was busted for drugs and guns during Iran Contra. He personally was the authorized signatory on the deal with Southern Air Transport to move it to a military base in Columbus, Ohio to service the limited. The speaker then asks how, in 1994, one would convince the Central Intelligence Agency to move its proprietary CIA airline used for covert operations, based in Miami, to Columbus, Ohio just to service Epstein’s personal company. They question whether he cold-called the CIA or schmoozed it, or if it was because he was handling Adnan Khashoggi's money during Iran Contra that purchased the guns that Southern Air Transport, a decade earlier, was moving.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jeffrey Epstein negotiated the fucking contract to move the CIA's proprietary airliner, Southern Air Transport, which was busted running drugs and guns during Iran Contra. He personally was the authorized signatory on the deal with Southern Air Transport to move it to a military base in Columbus, Ohio to service the limited. Hey. Any of you guys got any bright ideas about how you would go about in 1994 convincing the Central Intelligence Agency to move its proprietary CIA airline used for covert operations part, based in Miami to fucking up and move its entire operation to fucking Columbus, Ohio just to service your personal company instead of the CIA? What do you think he cold called the CIA?
You think he just schmoozed the CIA? Or is it because he was handling Adnan Khashoggi's money during Iran Contra that purchased the guns that Southern Air Transport a decade earlier was moving?
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
This is the real reason for the EU Digital Censorship Act, and its first-ever fine against X last week. The EU’s plan is to fine X into effective bankruptcy over the next several years until there is no platform for European right-wing populist parties to mobilize support online.
@POLITICOEurope - POLITICOEurope
Hard-right and far-right politicians now lead the polls in France, the U.K. and even Germany. Here’s how the power of populist hardliners differs across European countries 👇 🔗 https://politi.co/3MyT6Tp
Politics, Policy, Political News - POLITICO
Nobody knows politics like POLITICO.
politico.com
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Why I Think The Seeds Of The J6 Fedsurrection Plot Were Planted At This Secret Meeting In June 2020 (And What This Means For The J6 Pipe Bomber Investigation) https://t.co/DO8LGmqHQz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates.
Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results.
The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others.
The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives.
The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter.
The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification.
Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cole purchased a total of six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8. Oh, fuck. June 1, June 8, and November 16. Hold up, please. I'm gonna hit you guys with the music while I pull up some receipts for you.
Speaker 1: Alright. Now, what are the questions that I would be asked while I was kind
Speaker 0: of the point person on this for that period of time in 2021 was, okay. Ben's fine. You got all these facts, but what's your theory of the case, this, bed surrection thingy? You think, you know, it's mentally deranged, mentally vulnerable, suggestible people don't just drop in your lap as a crooked FBI agent wanting to just do your bidding or suggestible just do your bidding to plan a pipe bomb next month. Takes a while to ensnare someone into your Truman show where you've got three or four of his new best friends
Speaker 1: all telling him, build the pipe bomb. Build the pipe bomb. When do I think contingency plans? And and this is admittedly speculation. I don't know this to be to be the case.
I don't put the world's strongest confidence interval in it in it. If I was a federal investigator at the FBI, I would use this as an investigative lens to sweep things up, and I would broaden my investigation to this so that it at least sweeps this up.
Speaker 0: Because there are many permutations of this that don't rely on this exact structure. But if you proceed accordingly,
Speaker 1: I think you'll get approximately there, and that's this. It gets back to their one chance for winning the election in 2020, which is what they call what they call the Red Mirage Blue Shift event. Red Mirage Blue Shift. This is CNN, for example, 09/01/2020. Month and
Speaker 0: a half before the Whitmer Fednapping, month before the Whitmer Fednapping hoax story, two months before the election, four months before January 6. Deciphering the red mirage and blue shift, uncertainty surrounding the election results. This was what CISA and the censorship operation to censor the twenty twenty election was all about. It was to pre censor anything that might question or, quote, delegitimize an upcoming miraculous come from behind victory the day after or in the days after where it would be a red mirage, Trump would win on election night, but then it would shift blue, and Biden would win. They knew that was Biden's only path to victory, that it would look fucked to all hell.
So they had to pre censor five months before that happened, starting in June 2020, any criticism it on social media. That's why you got banned for questioning mass mail in ballots. Because high ranking government officials at the fucking Department of Homeland Security teamed up with their outside blob mob who's who are all career specialists in toppling governments know that the crux of it is perceptions of legitimacy. That's what tips judges, juries, supreme court decisions, riots or protests in the streets, resistance movements, so they need to pre censor that.
Speaker 1: At the same time, they had to deal with the fact that in the event of a red mirage blue shift, and a substantial portion of the country still thought Trump was legitimate president, and Trump still had a 100 fucking million Twitter followers and was on Twitter every day. They thought Trump would be a shadow president, that he would, foreign leaders will look at him as the real head of state and
Speaker 0: would seek diplomacy with him, and half the country would see him as the president and wouldn't obey federal orders. He could cause a constitutional crisis. So they didn't just have to beat Trump. They had to stop Trumpism after Trump even if they won in the red mirage blue shift, and they needed to engage in color revolution preparations
Speaker 1: in case Trump won. And so one of the highest ranking military officials of the Obama administration, Rosa Brooks, author of how war became everything, how
Speaker 0: and how everything became war and the military became everything. Now Georgetown Law, she was the undersecretary of defense for policy, counselor to undersecretary of defense for policy. I read her book, chapter one, she talks about her CIA blue badge for this. Now, she headed up the transition integrity project,
Speaker 1: which was no. Actually, I should note. Subscribers will be sick of me saying this probably. But if you're new here, welcome. I do see these streams every week for subscribers.
Three ways to stop Trump before the twenty twenty election. This is who ran the transitioning integrity project that I'm about to walk you through. Three rate ways to get rid of Trump before 2020 by Rosa Brooks, extremely powerful military official for the Obama administration. She wrote this 01/30/2017. Trump had only been in office for ten days.
He was inaugurated 01/20/2017. She wrote in foreign policy, elite mainstream press, three ways to get rid of president Trump
Speaker 0: before the next election.
Speaker 1: That election cycle just concluded ten days ago. Are we really stuck with this guy? But the magic in this article is not the three ways. It's what's below the fold.
Speaker 0: You go to archive.is,
Speaker 1: get around the paywall for a second. Rosa Brooks wrote, even though the article is called three ways to get rid of Trump before 2020, as a high ranking military official. Actually, very deep down, she says, actually, there's a fourth way. I didn't wanna put it in the title piece because it's kind of insurrectionary. The fourth possibility is one that until recently, I would have said was unthinkable of The United States Of America, a military coup.
So a high ranking undersecretary of defense for diplomacy I'm sorry, for policy,
Speaker 0: High ranking Obama military official says, actually, he's ten days into Trump's first term in office, less than two weeks in office. A high ranking military official from the Obama administration
Speaker 1: says three ways to get rid of Trump before the next election. Impeach him, indite him, get him to step down, congressional, you know, blah blah blah. But she writes, actually, there's a fourth way. I wouldn't have considered this before. We have
Speaker 0: to be kind of hush-hush about this.
Speaker 1: The fourth way is a military coup. We can military coup Trump out of office. So this person who openly wrote in mainstream press that we should consider a military coup, a coup to depose the democratically elected president just ten days into his presidency, she would go on to spearhead one of the craziest scandals in American history that I think probably only me and at this point, like, my subscribers have really gotten drilled into their head. The Transition Integrity Project was a said to
Speaker 0: be a a war game exercise over several days in June 2020. Remember that because Cole bought these pipe bomb parts over two phases.
Speaker 1: June 1 and June 8, so early June 2020, exactly when the Transition Integrity Project held their war games. I believe it was June or something. And then, again, in November 2020.
Speaker 0: Now participating on before I read you this document, I want you
Speaker 1: to understand that the highest levels of American political power did this war game run by Rosa Brooks, the Pentagon senior official who openly called for organizing a military coup.
Speaker 0: Who was a part of this that I'm about to read you? Michael Steele, the former head of
Speaker 1: the RNC, the former head of the Republican Party,
Speaker 0: John
Speaker 1: Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, the White House chief of staff, and the guy who would be promoted to running a $375,000,000,000 slush fund to hand out $375,000,000,000 in taxpayer money to DNC friends and cronies, The former governor of Michigan before Whitmer. Donna Brazile, the former head of the DNC. So these are the never Trump and also Bill Crystal, the IRI, never Trump, CIA Republican, ghost of George Bush,
Speaker 0: never Trump Republican side, as
Speaker 1: well as Max Booth there. And so what you have is the heads of both political parties, as well as governors,
Speaker 0: the most vicious political operatives. You had military and intelligence people. I think there were 70 some high ranking military intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives on both sides of the never of the aisle. On the Republican side, they were all the never Trumpers who wanted Biden to win. Now what they produced, and this is a public document, this is just you can you can look this up.
This is a judicial watch. This is another copy. This is all written about in mainstream press. We either did not take a critical eye to what it said or shall I say, whitewashed it to try to stop the scandal and hoped you wouldn't read the passages I'm about to. Nominally, it says they convened.
Now this report was in they issued the report in August, but they held it in early June as soon as the George Floyd riots kicked off in late May, June 2020. As Black Lives Matter protests were shutting down the country, these assholes and arch apex predators of the of the blob world got together and thought, How can we use mob the street mobs of Black Lives Matter to potentially color revolution Trump out of taking office if he wins the election? Now they tried to say it's preventing a disrupted election in case Trump tries to stay in power. We need a color revolution capacity to get Trump out of
Speaker 1: office in case he clings to power. That's what they formally that's how the press reported this. But I want you to look at two things. First, the appendix gives it away. The appendix is called will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?
And what they say is, okay. Let's just say Trump loses the election in this red mirage, blue shift event that people are going to think is fishy.
Speaker 0: Many observers
Speaker 1: yeah. Just independent observers. Right? Expect Trump to try to extend his norm disrupting influence after he leaves office through an independent media company or partnerships.
Speaker 0: The participants in this war game we're about to read, which I'll just jump to a quick spoiler, included how to stop Trump from taking office even if he clearly wins the electoral college 52 to 47
Speaker 1: by mobilizing Black Lives Matter street protests, actions in the streets, mobilizing racial justice activists so that Biden could mobilize them in the event of a clear Trump win to color revolution him out
Speaker 0: of office, street protest him out of office, force him to step down, and they went through all the steps. They'd have blue states secede. They do an alternate elector's plot. The same thing they they that they openly planned to do if Trump won the election. They then arrested Rudy Giuliani and 19 people on an alternate electors plot that they themselves openly plotted to do that they would be doing if Trump won.
Speaker 1: And they just assumed that Black Lives Matter would
Speaker 0: mobilize in the event of a Biden call to take to the streets, a Biden call to take to the streets. But they said, well, but we'll need to do more testing. We just assumed they would in this war game. We should robustly test their likely receptivity, these racial just the black the black lives of George Floyd riots So they can be mobilized at election time in case in case Trump clearly wins the election. And so what they called to do is for the Democrat party, the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democrat party to build strong ties
Speaker 1: with Black Lives Matter
Speaker 0: and be responsive to the movement's demands, give Black Lives Matter what they want, give them $50,000,000,000 in Chamber of Commerce money. If you remember, Chamber of Commerce signed the secret deal with the AFL CIO. That was the crux of the Molly Ball Time Magazine article to have the protesters stand down when it was announced Biden won. So between June 2020 and November 2020, the Democrat party openly planned the highest levels, head of
Speaker 1: the party, high ranking Democrat military officials to do favors for Black Lives Matter so that Black Lives Matter would owe them favors and be responsive to a Biden call to take to the streets, to
Speaker 0: street protest Trump out of office if he won fifty two forty seven in a landslide electoral college victory. They'd weigh more on this. It we'll we'll we'll get we'll
Speaker 1: get to that. But coming back to this point, so
Speaker 0: but the highest levels of power in the
Speaker 1: White House, John Podesta, in the military, Rosa Brooks, in the at the political party level, Donna Brazile and and Michael Steele, former heads of both political parties. And mind you, where were the bombs? Where did the January 6 pipe bomber drop the bombs? At the RNC headquarters, which is run by Michael Steele, who participated in this open coup plot to overturn the election if Trump won the electoral college, and the DNC headquarters run by Donna Brazile, who also participated in this open coup plot. Remember that.
So what they say again, this is we're still we're in the
Speaker 0: annex because whatever you wanna think about, what what we're about to read in this clear Trump win section, which is fucking insane, they give the game away about the whole purpose of this election coup simulation in appendix c. What they say is they even if Trump loses, will will Trumpism survive a a Trump loss? How can we make sure to get rid of Trump? Even if we even if Trump loses, how do we def defeat Trumpism permanently? The problem is Trumpism might survive even if Trump loses.
So we can take out the whole movement. We need a way
Speaker 1: to do that. And they said the problem is is because
Speaker 0: if Trump loses and steps down, he'll still have this huge media presence. Trump, with his 80,000,000 follower Twitter account, will attack Biden early and consistently, blaming all the problems in in a country on a combination of the stolen election and the incompetence of
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. They knew they knew Biden would be incompetent. They knew he'd fuck it up in exactly the way that he did. They knew that he'd give them billions of dollars in their NGO money and all this bullshit. And so Trump will relentlessly hammer as the loser of the election.
If only the election hadn't been stolen from me, everything in the country would be great again. Such a message could lead to electing far right candidates to congress, providing an anchor for ex president Trump's proposals. Oh, no. The Democrat process. People might vote for Trump like candidates.
Trumpism may get even stronger if Trump loses, and we don't do something big to be able to prosecute and get rid of all Trump supporters.
Speaker 0: Don't believe me that that's where they're going? Well, watch this. How should how should an anti authoritarian interest this is this is this is all blob craft. Right? Everything's democracy versus autocracy.
When all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail. All CIA activity has to be pro democracy against autocracy. So the participants in the open coup plot to overturn the election if in a the case of a clear Trump win, urged Democrats to embrace a new playbook. They said Democrats should not rely on litigation, moral suasion, or merely hoping that Republicans in Congress will come to their senses. Instead, they should publicly support the George Floyd riots.
Speaker 1: But wait. There's more. There was near universal agreement among wow. What do you what do
Speaker 0: you know? Universal agreement among 70 military intelligence and high level political operatives, all anti Trump, that all these anti Trump coup plotters had universal agreement that in the event of a Trump loss, the GOP strategy will be to create trouble for the incoming Biden administration, to retake ground in 2022, and retake the White House in 2024. Spoiler alert, bitches, that happened. GOP activists, possibly encouraged by Trump himself and by far right media, may seek to do the same thing we're doing as we speak right now in Minneapolis. If the GOP holds the senate, even more dramatic blocking actions.
Now here's the money shot. This is again from the highest echelons of power in Washington DC, unanimously agreeing that after running this war game exercise on how to successfully stop Trump from getting inaugurated, if he wins a clear election night election victory in the electoral college, here are the recommendations in June 2020 exactly when Brian Cole was buying the pipe bomb parts that he would later allegedly deposit at the DNC and RNC headquarters while you have the former DNC and RNC leaders making these recommendations. One question is whether to continue the tradition of offering legal immunity to Trump and his family.
Speaker 1: They wanted to find a way to arrest Donald Trump, to take out Trumpism after Trump, to go after Trump and his family knowingly, consciously. And there needs to be a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to challenge the white supremacist and extremist networks that enabled Trump's rise to power. This base will not automatically demobilize if and when Trump leaves office, and it is inimicable to our democracy.
Speaker 0: So five months before the election, the highest levels of military intelligence and political power in The United States Of America all got together in a secret war game to to find a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square, but that they also needed a reason to throw Trump and his family in jail. And they needed a robust intentional and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power because they will not automatically demobilize when Trump leaves office, and they can't be in this country anymore.
Speaker 1: We need a way to mass arrest them. June 2020, exactly when Brian Cole made his first alleged purchases of the pipe bomb parts. We had some reason to do a mass roundup, not just of Trump, but of Trumpism. All Trump pro Trump networks that enabled his rise to power. Now would you believe me if I told you that in this section,
Speaker 0: clear Trump win. This scenario posited a comfortable electoral college victory for Trump. 02/1986 to 02/1952, but that Biden would win the popular vote so they could try to make some sort of argument that because Biden won the popular vote, that he's the legitimate president. If never, that's that's the play that they were making it at Harvard with Lawrence Tribe and all those guys. Everyone's saying, actually, repeal the electoral college.
The electoral college is not legitimate. Yeah. You should protest if Trump wants the electoral college. You'll see they say here so the game ended in threats of constitutional crisis, threats of secession, but they have to make sure the popular will prevails by electoral, abolishment of the electoral college and making DC and Puerto Rico states. Key actions include so they had Bill Crystal and David Fromm, two anti never Trump Republicans role play Trump, and they had John Podesta.
John fucking Podesta personally role played Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, the guy in charge of the $375,000,000,000 slush fund. He got promoted. Instead of getting indicted for doing this, John, John Podesta got promoted to a third of $1,000,000,000,000 slush fund for his own friends and cronies. So when we put our never Trump friends pretending to be
Speaker 1: Trump against John Podesta and the room split on those two camps to role play out, how to find a way to get rid of Trump even if he won the election legally.
Speaker 0: The first priority to legitimize the the the electoral college results, that's the fucking law. If that's not legitimate, then how the fuck was it a crime to the alternate electors plot? That is the law. They arrested 19 of Trump's lawyers and campaign officials were even thinking about the very thing they they all, 70 of them, colluded and scammed to do.
Speaker 1: So they said Trump's first objective, dastardly,
Speaker 0: was to say, hey. Yeah. The electoral college is legitimate.
Speaker 1: By pushing narratives that cast doubt on Biden's popular vote victory in portraying widespread protests of Donald Trump as undemocratic in promoting mob rule. So, immediately, play one is Trump wins
Speaker 0: the electoral college. Do you see part of why on election night, I was so I was so insistent about how the biggest story of the night was the popular vote victory because it robs them of this very thing they plotted in 2020. So move one, John Podesta, Jennifer Granholm, Donna Brazile, Rosa Brooks play, hey. Remember those Black Lives Matter street protests that we just agreed we were all going to bribe and fund and do favors for so that they would do protests of Trump? Well, we're rolling them out now, and Trump is saying, hey.
That's mob rule. I won the election. And they're portraying that as him delegitimizing an illegal thing. He would have won the election. The Trump campaign, they say, planted agent provocateurs into the protests to ensure they turned violent.
So this group of high level military intelligence and political operatives were already thinking in June 2020 as Brian Cole was purchasing his first pipe bomb parts about planting agent provocateurs into protests to ensure they turned violent and further a narrative of a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected president.
Speaker 1: They were already thinking about that. Right when Brian Cole was buying the pipe bomb parts that targeted the buildings run by two of the participants in this exercise? K. The GOP elected officials team being war gamed by Michael Steele, the former head of
Speaker 0: the RNC, David Fromm, and Bill Crystal was supportive of Trump's efforts to crack down on pro notice how much of this depends on the muscle and scale of these protests. Establishing law and order and defeating the anarchists was a unifying call. The most consequential action of the first term was the Biden campaign's retraction of its election night concession capitalizing on public outrage and the street protests about electing someone who won the electoral college. They capitalized on concern about voter suppression. Didn't really count.
The Biden campaign began the game. So this is a event two zero one style fucking war game. Five months before it happened, began the game by encouraging three states with Democrat governors, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan to ask for recounts. As the game developed, governors in two of the three states, Wisconsin and Michigan, sent separate slates of electors. The alternate electors, we're told that's a felony conspiracy crime.
How many tens of millions of dollars in legal fees did Trump election people have to pay for even considering that? And felony criminal charges brought by
Speaker 1: the DOJ, dawn
Speaker 0: raids on their homes, taken away in shackles by the FBI. Why didn't they do that to Michael Steele and Donna Brazile and Bill Crystal and John Podesta? The GOP failed to convince moderate Democrats in the house to break ranks with the Democratic resistance, much to the GOP's surprise. Part of the strategy here by team Biden, team Blob, by these high level military intelligence and political operatives was to attack the electoral college and to claim that the certified popular votes were questionable because of voter suppression. Turns two and three, the Biden campaign actively encouraged Western states, California, Oregon, and Washington, California, Gavin Newsom, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, where the riots, ground zero of the riots, and Washington, Seattle ground 0.1 of the riots to break away and secede from The United States, to secede from the
Speaker 1: union, unless congressional Republicans agreed
Speaker 0: to give the victory to Biden by giving statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico, getting rid of the the and getting rid the electoral college.
Speaker 1: Secede from the union unless Joe Biden was made the president. This is John Podesta, Michael Steele, Donna Brazile,
Speaker 0: Rosa Brooks,
Speaker 1: 70 of them, second slate of electors again. The Biden campaign took provocative unprecedented actions, such as supporting California's secession and sending a second slate of electors. So John Podesta personally role played that move, alternate electors,
Speaker 0: which sure made it it sure played into a broader narrative of Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup. They knew they war gamed an illegal coup, and they war gamed what the perceived the the the public perception that it was an illegal coup. But what was one of the most consequential moves in the whole game? Was that team Biden on January 6. I want you to look at this very closely.
This is one of the most consequential moves in the whole game in order to make sure Trump could not take office even if they even acknowledged that he clearly won the election. One of the most consequential moves was that team
Speaker 1: Biden on January 6. Now again, mind you, they did this a week into the Black Lives Matter nationwide riots In June 2020,
Speaker 0: they were already looking
Speaker 1: I want you to etch these words into your memory forever. Provoked a breakdown on January 6 as one of the most consequential moves to provoke a breakdown in the joint session of congress.
Speaker 0: Team Biden. As far back as June 2020, did a multi day war game with 70 of the highest level military intelligence and political power players in The United States Of America.
Speaker 1: Team Biden
Speaker 0: war gamed in June 2020 as Brian Cole bought his first pipe bomb parts
Speaker 1: with the former head of the RNC,
Speaker 0: Michael Steele, and former head of the DNC participating in this very war game. Team Biden on 01/06/2021, that's the that's every year, January 6, two weeks for inauguration, and that is when the bicameral meeting of congress happens to certify the election. Their move was to provoke a breakdown. Remember, that was the whole felony around January 6, obstruction of an official proceeding. If you provoke a breakdown of congress on January 6, well, that's twenty years in prison.
That's ten years, and it's twenty years if you do a conspiracy. So they were already planning mass street protests. When you go through this this, I want you to this is a 22 page document. I'm gonna run a I'm gonna put the word street in. Streets.
Street protests. Street protests. Control that 15 times in a 22 page document. War game. 15 times.
It's likely to be a political calculus not based on legal rules alone. This is dynamic that is likely to not only be fought in courts or by counting ballots,
Speaker 1: but actually on the streets, street protests.
Speaker 0: You'll see what happens before election a day before election day will, to a large extent, determine the margin of contestation. That's why in June 2020, CISA started its election censorship operation
Speaker 1: to get all the social media companies to ban anything that might delegitimize a Biden win in a red mirage blue shift event. Streets. Take to the streets.
Speaker 0: A show of numbers in the streets and actions in the streets may be the decisive factors in determining what the public perceives is a just in in in legitimate outcome. This may well be a street fight, not a legal battle. Planners. Again, these are all never Trump high level officials and operatives saying this maybe will be a street fight, not a legal battle. Now mind you, this is as Black Lives Matter is taking off, and everyone's wondering, hey.
Why are they getting billions of dollars from all these big DNC CEO run companies? Now look at what they said. Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications. Let me highlight this. Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communication and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization to take to the streets.
If there is a crisis, if we need if if Trump wins the election and a clear Trump win, almost every strategy to get rid of Trump is dependent on mass mobilization. And in particular, on large numbers of people taking to the
Speaker 1: streets, potentially for an extended period.
Speaker 0: Large base building groups, like like George Soros' Indivisible, Hold the Line, will need to anchor the strategy, but their success will likely depend on supporting and resourcing new and emerging racial justice leaders,
Speaker 1: many of whom are not affiliated with formal institutions and coalitions. So this open coup plot specifically done to try to
Speaker 0: overturn a free and fair election in case Trump wins and to find a way to get rid of Trumpism permanently if Trump loses in order to take out the entire networks that enabled Trump's rise to
Speaker 1: power because they won't automatically demobilize. So we'll need to find a
Speaker 0: way to mass arrest them
Speaker 1: or have a robust intentional specific strategy to terrorize them into submission, like all of the domestic intelligence reforms and purges from DOD with Bishop Garrison, another story I broke at revolver with Darren,
Speaker 0: to purge DOD, to purge the the police, to terrify anyone so they never wanna participate in a protest again, a peaceful protest, because the DOJ is arresting thousands of their friends and family. So I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and all that we charge as many people as possible. And it worked because we saw that people were afraid to come back to DC because they were like, if we go there, we're gonna get charged. They won't automatically demobilize,
Speaker 1: and their kindness inimicable to our society, these networks that enabled Trump's rise to power. And it is with that specific fact in mind, strategy in mind, that in June 2020, right as the the Black Lives Matter riots were rocking the country,
Speaker 0: that large base building Democrat and progressive groups
Speaker 1: consciously consciously decided to bribe Black Lives Matter, not just supporting, but resourcing, funding them. Do you remember the $50,000,000,000? Everyone's like, why why is that why are all these huge companies, all
Speaker 0: these huge groups giving billions of dollars to a group that's doing open open violence on our streets, burning a police precinct to the ground, killing people in broad daylight like David Dorn.
Speaker 1: Man, OG. Come on, OG. Come on, OG. Come on. There's somebody granddaddy call on some TV.
But to specifically fund them
Speaker 0: so that they would mass mobilize to get rid of Trump in case he won the election. And if you remember,
Speaker 1: they were all told to stand down in that secret agreement in the Molly Ball article when Biden won. The way
Speaker 0: they teed it up is they said, listen, we assumed that they would take this that BLM p people would take to
Speaker 1: the streets when Biden told them to because they hate Trump. But as a practical matter, participants in the
Speaker 0: exercise noted that racial justice activists will likely act dependently of the Biden campaign. They're independent. They might not be beholden to or a tool of
Speaker 1: the Democrat party. Their support or Biden's ability to mobilize them cannot
Speaker 0: be taken for granted. So we have to robustly test the likely receptivity, and what do
Speaker 1: they call for in the suggestions? How do you make sure they don't act independently? Our next recommendation is to now in June 2020 have our huge foundation money and Soros grants and all this and our chamber of commerce, multinational companies, fund them. Fund them. They're not formally associated with us currently.
Bring them in by resourcing them. Six times in this 22 page document in June 2020, they deliberately these same people using conspiracy, crimes, sedition, insurrection to
Speaker 0: overturn a democratically elected president, to overturn a dem a democrat free and fair by their own acknowledgment, free and fair election with a clear Trump win. Six times, they mentioned the importance of provoking that breakdown on January 6. So when Brian Cole purchased the first pipe bomb parts in June 2020, I have to wonder,
Speaker 1: Do I need to say any more explicitly than I've already laid it out?
Speaker 0: Did this group, directly or indirectly, for example, as they shared this road map around, and it flew around the entire mainstream press? Everyone report on this. The New York Times report on this. New York Times, Transition Integrity Project.
Speaker 1: In this article right here. What was the date of this? 11/01/2020.
Speaker 0: I mean, there's a million. If you just a bipartisan group. Here's in here's in the Boston Globe. A bipartisan group. Yeah.
Democrats and never Trump Republicans. That's
Speaker 1: what they call bipartisan. Gamed out what a contested election would look like and offer recommendations. Hey. Assholes at the Boston Globe. Hey, Jess Bidgood.
Hey, Globe staff.
Speaker 0: Did you bipartisan, They just offered recommendations?
Speaker 1: Hey, asshole. Did you read the final two pages of the document, which is all about how to stop Trumpism to ensure that the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power
Speaker 0: are permanently demobilized
Speaker 1: because they're inimicable to our society, and that there needs to
Speaker 0: be a robust, intentional, specific strategy to eradicate them. Hey. This bipartisan group of of participants around a contested election offer recommendations. Hey. Did did you read what the recommendations were, asshole?
The recommendations were about how to find ways to end the tradition of legal immunity so that you could arrest Trump and his family. They literally specifically targeted Trump and only Trump for how to find a way to throw him in jail. What I'm saying is, as I don't know, let's say John fucking Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, and the guy who would get promoted for his good work in this couponing with a $375,000,000,000
Speaker 1: personal slush fund. Do you you think maybe as they were plotting this,
Speaker 0: they were what was their phrase?
Speaker 1: Resource? Do you think they were maybe looking around at people who might help with these kind of activities. Hey. What if we need to induce a breakdown on January 6 to stop the bicameral meeting of congress?
Speaker 0: Shit.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll have to buy more time. Maybe we'll need a pipe bomb.
Speaker 0: If there's a pipe bomb on January 6, they'll probably delay the vote by weeks because it'll be a national security concern. It'll buy us more time.
Speaker 1: And then
Speaker 0: they already had the capacity in place.
Speaker 1: They could have simply used it for the second part of the memo. Hey. Actually, we don't need it to stop a vote from approving Trump. We could take those same pipe bombs, and we could use that as the predicate for our recommendations about finding a way to imprison Trump and his family. And have that also be a way to initiate with public legitimacy our robust intentional specific strategy to eliminate all the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power
Speaker 0: and forcibly demobilize them.
Speaker 1: Is that why Brian Cole bought the first pipe bomb parts in June 2020?
Speaker 0: Has this exact war game was happening? Now let me let me say something, which is that I don't know the answer to that question about the transition integrity project connection to January 6. That is not a facial allegation. What I'm stressing is that if I were a federal investigator, that'd be the first fucking place I look. Let me show you something else on that.
As these same high level military, intelligence, diplomatic, statecraft, Washington DC folks were plotting this,
Speaker 1: mass street protests using Black Lives Matter and Antifa folks to shut down and stop
Speaker 0: the election winner from taking office. They were simultaneously obsessed eight times in a 22 page document. They stressed the importance of not letting Trump use the National
Speaker 1: Guard to disperse the protest.
Speaker 0: The president's ability to federalize the National Guard to stop our protests or invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active military domestically. They did not want Trump to be able to deploy the military to break up protests. National Guard. Again, this is in a show of numbers in the streets and action in the streets may be the decisive factors. The streets will be the decisive factors.
Speaker 1: The problem is is that Trump may be able to rely on law enforcement actors, including National Guard,
Speaker 0: to counter mass left wing BLM style protests against Trump winning the election fair and square.
Speaker 1: The National Guard. The National Guard. The National Guard. The National Guard. They specifically war gamed it.
The Trump campaign asked the DOJ to prepare the National Guard for deployment against to maintain order against potential protest. Mark Milley sabotaged the deployment of the of the Nash the National Guard on January 6. Trump wanted to get Pelosi and Milley. Trump wanted to send the National Guard, and it was
Speaker 0: Mark Milley and Nancy Pelosi. I wonder.
Speaker 2: You've been waiting for this for trespassing on the Capitol Ground. You've been waiting for this for trespassing on the capital ground. You've waiting for this for trespassing on the capital ground. You've waiting for this for trespassing on the capital ground.
Speaker 0: Was Mark Milley keyed into this plan? The transition integrity project? As a never Trumper, very close to this whole network? Remember, Mark Milley, just like Chris Wray, he got pardoned,
Speaker 1: blanket pardoned,
Speaker 0: and he was kept over by the Biden administration for two and half years until he parachuted off to make millions at JPMorgan Bank. He was rewarded. He was kept on as a Democrat. President by president Biden could have appointed a new chairman of the joint chiefs. Instead, he took Trump's pick.
Mark Milley betrayed Trump just like Chris Ray on the Jan but think about this. The FBI director responsible for the failure of January 6 was kept on as FBI director for all four years by a Democrat. Same with same with Mark Milley. I would not be surprised if you find that, Brian Cole had some weird military friends in his later years. This is another way they do it.
Military counterintelligence, not just
Speaker 1: FBI or JTTF or DHS. And, again, if I were the FBI, I would be
Speaker 0: subpoenaing the shit out of the Transition Integrity Project network. I would get a list of all 65, 70 names. I would get I would under penalty of I mean, you you just, like, subpoenaed all files. They're a part of this criminal investigation. You could justify that for their alternate electors thing alone.
But that same group out of Georgetown, Georgetown University, National Guard, Trump, Rosa Brooks' colleagues over there, if you remember, I did this, did this video. I think it's got, like, 5,000,000 views or something. They're planning mass destabilizing riots, such scale the only National Guard can contain and preplanning a way to block Trump from activating the National Guard since January 2024. NBC reports a network of public interest groups and lawmakers nervous about Trump's potential return to power is quietly devising plans to foil any effort to read what they actually say. This is about protests, and it's being organized out of Georgetown.
Georgetown law, the exact place where Rosa Brooks is and, again, Georgetown's right in
Speaker 1: the heart of DC. It's the CIA Central to stop the military from squashing the protest that they themselves are deliberately designed to create an insurrection to overthrow the government in their own planning documents, I e, as we covered right here. But if you've got that June date so getting back to this. June is when you started buying the pipe on parts. That's not a random detail.
And and I I I hope I hope the FBI that this can be downloaded on them because they say what was it? June purchased them June 1, June 8, and then so he could have started to get some of
Speaker 0: the parts around that time, and then a week after the election, gets the remaining parts that are needed. Could've been reapproached at that time. Hey, kid. Also, on June 20, bought more parts. June 3, bought the timers.
Alright. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Well, that was a long detour. I think it worth it.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Please listen to this full clip, and, if you're a Trump admin official who follows my account, take these words to heart. https://t.co/8vSkDZF8Nj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns.
- CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports.
- The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election.
- Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped.
- A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power.
- The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition.
- The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day.
- Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded.
- The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This was CISA's office of mis, dis, and malinformation. They specifically say domestic threat actors for the DHS office of mis, dis, and malinformation. As you'll see right there in the archive at the top, it says cisa.gov backslash mdm, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation. Now, Benny, as we speak, this office was around for two whole years from 2021 until 2023 when, basically, I don't mean to brag, but my foundation published a series of reports about it, and then they shut down the website and renamed everything. This was around for two whole years.
This was now the disinformation governance board was not formed until about April 2022. This was around since January 2021, the very first week that Biden took office. The the CISOs countering foreign influence task force, which was supposed to, stop the Russians, which was repurposed to stop Trump in in the twenty twenty election, quickly changed its name from the countering foreign influence task force to the office of misdis and malinformation, where it was no longer legally, and in terms of its charter, confined to foreign influence. Because as they said, one month before the twenty twenty twenty election, they wanted to switch their focus to 80% domestic, 20% foreign.
Speaker 1: I think we talk way too much about foreign influence. I'm be honest. The truth is that the vast majority of these problems okay. The problems are information environment are domestic problems. We we have, like, an 8020 breakdown of 80% we talk about foreign and 20 domestic.
I think that needs to be flipped.
Speaker 0: Now I bring this up because the second link that I that I put in the chat, you'll see it's the holly.senate.gov link. This is from June 2022, and this is that this is Holly and and Grassley. This these were the documents that end up blowing up the disinformation governance board. If you click on that that thing that says documents, what you'll see is is a 31 page PDF, which to this day, over three years later, represents the sum total of in internal documents we have related to the office of misdice and malformation. What I wanna know is why the hell do I do I have more information about the office of misdis and malinformation and who they targeted as domestic threat actors from the minority Republican senate?
Remember, put yourself back in the 2022. You had a Democrat president, a Democrat control of the house of representatives, and a Democrat control of the senate. And we had more transparency about d a DHS's misdis and malinformation office than we've had in ten months of actually having control over the executive branch, actually having control over the house of of representatives, actually having control over the senate. Why do why why is nobody at DHS publishing these? I want every internal file.
I want every email correspondence. I want every text from a office of misdis and malinformation government employee on a DHS phone to be in a WikiLeaks style, ODNI, JFK files JFK files style, dhs.gov database where now and for centuries evermore, we have a detailed internal forensic reconstruction of the effery they did inside DHS during those years. So we can name and shame the appropriate people so that we can hold this up in the court of public opinion and say never again. Are they asleep? You know, did they not did is the snooze button been on for ten months?
Do they do they not know it exists? It bothers me that we have more transparency from one whistleblower three years ago when we were out of power than we have from nominally tens of thousands of people at DHS under this executive branch while we have the executive branch power. And and and I say that not just about the office of misdemeanor information at DHS. I just published this video on George Soros state department cables that I found going into the WikiLeaks archive from 2010. WikiLeaks published state department cables that dated from 1973 to 2010.
Now these are just just from a handful of ambassadors and State Department folks whose records ended up getting leaked to to WikiLeaks. And I was able to reconstruct dozens of transactions and global investments by the Soros Management Fund that were intermediated by the US state department. George Soros and his older brother, Paul Soros, I have more transparency about the Open Society Foundation's relationship with the state department from Julian Assange fifteen years ago than I do from my own state department today. The Open Society Foundation weaponized that relationship with the global transatlantic foreign policy establishment to meddle in domestic politics while hiding behind a shield of secrecy with the US state department, with USAID, with the Central Intelligence Agency. And to this day, we have zero disclosures.
Benny, why has not a single cooperative agreement from USAID been made public? Can I ask that? We we know a lot about the contracts that have been cut. Right? A lot a lot of the the funding to USAID.
And what you get are one line descriptions. Well, this was funding at a transgender dance festival in Somalia. Okay. Cool. First of all, these grant descriptions are never what they say.
You get a one line description in usaspending.gov, and then everything else is under national security or or foreign policy. It's it's or it's you you just can't get access to it. And I give the famous Zunzanillo example where, you know, the you had this social USA building a a CIA social media platform in Cuba, which but The USA USA Spending Dot Gov grant description was for humanitarian relief in Pakistan. It's, you know, it's it's spin the glow it's, you know, it's totally random what the the grant says versus what it actually does. But every single one of these dollars is accompanied by a cooperative agreement between USAID and the grant recipient with the actual details of what they're getting paid to do.
And not a single cooperative agreement between these between USAID and the Open Society Foundation or the Omidyar Network or the Gates Foundation have ever been made public. None of the quarterly reports, none of the annual reports where they report on their milestones. Here's what you paid us to do. Here's how it's coming along. Here's here's, you know, our success.
Here are the people that we're talking to in network. None of it. I need to go back to hacked records from fifteen years ago to to do that exercise when nominally, you've got the the president's pick of of personnel at state and at USAID and at the White House, and you've got a Republican majority in the house and the senate who wouldn't block these disclosures or could be I don't think would it would be politically palatable, frankly. And and so I I I thought in the first couple months of the admin that because so many things were happening at a breakneck speed that this was coming. And that even and then for the next couple months, I thought, well, okay.
Well, this takes time. And now as the end of the year approaches and then when 2026 starts, the focus is going to be on the midterms, I am coming to you concerned and to all members of the administration, whether you are at DHS, whether you are at USAID, whether you're at the state department, whether you're at the CIA or ODNI or where the Department of War, I implore you, please, on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the mental history you inherit for this very special moment in time where every day is a precious day where the clock is ticking down Yes. Open these files and let us in. Yes.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I Cracked The WikiLeaks Cables & Found The Soros Family Has Been Working With The US State Department For 50 Years https://t.co/Sv0c0T9MGe
@someonesom47381 - someone somewhere
@MikeBenzCyber https://t.co/jhXZV46wRs
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I Cracked The WikiLeaks Cables & Found The Soros Family Has Been Working With The US State Department For 50 Years https://t.co/Sv0c0T9MGe
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
🚨 My full speech at Natcon 🚨 Timestamps: (0:00) How We Are Winning: Massive Victories at USAID, State, Pentagon, NSF & More (10:36) 2 Big Challenges: The Clockmakers Dilemma & International Laws Harming US Free Speech (18:47) AI Censorship & The Frontier | Solutions From Here https://t.co/nc7GCafT2y
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the United States is winning on free speech: “USAID was formally shut down” after years of funding censorship—“tens of millions of dollars per year” for seven years. The “Global Engagement Center … is gone, baby gone” and “a massive reorganization of the US State Department, a 130 sub agencies are being rolled up.” DHS’s “CISA … are now out of the speech police business.” The National Science Foundation faces a “hard ban … on any grant that so much as mentions the word misinformation.” Pentagon censorship programs have been folded up, including the “Minerva Initiative, the Psychological Warfare Research Center.” The “White House Information Integrity Task Force” involved “26 different federal government agencies” and was “co chaired by ODNI, OSTP, NSF.” Two caveats: “clockmaker’s dilemma” and that “the battle is moved upstream.” Solutions proposed: “total transparency and declassification” of agency files; “free speech diplomacy” with sanctions; “full review and cuts to foreign universities and NGOs” and “NATO funding until they get rid of the AI censorship work.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was asked to talk to you today about AI censorship and the new machinery of control. But that's a dark topic, so I want to start with some light and happy news, which is that on the topic of free speech, here in The United States, we are winning. We're actually winning at warp speed in shocking ways at the federal government level. We're actually winning at the federal government level in The United States on so many fronts that once seemed impossible, that advocates of censorship are having to come up with new and creative ways to try to stop our momentum. So, me quickly recap the wins from the past nine months.
It was announced in February and it was finally closed on July 1, just a few months ago. USAID was formally shut down. For folks who've only followed that issue in a cursory manner, you'll appreciate the magnitude of that as we get deeper into this story. But USAID alone spent tens of millions of dollars per year for the past seven years funding censorship organizations, censorship technology, the AI censorship technologies that we'll cover, censorship institutions, censorship centers at universities, and that is gone, baby gone. At the State Department, the Global Engagement Center, which was the original gangster of the government censorship world, it was created initially to stop ISIS from spreading terrorist propaganda on Twitter and Facebook, And then after the twenty sixteen election was repurposed to stop Russian propaganda, which meant Trump supporters or Brexit supporters or anyone in the transatlantic community who challenged US foreign policy with respect to maximalism around war or around frankly any globalist foreign policy agenda.
So the Global Engagement Center, had $60,000,000 in annual funding and over 50 full time positions, is gone, baby gone. It's done. There has been a massive reorganization of the US State Department, a 130 sub agencies are being rolled up, and some of the worst offenders in the censorship space such as the Bureau of Democracy Rights and Labor, This is the major color revolution cell, which is where the labor comes in. The rights is accusing your opponents of being an authoritarian, and then using human rights predicates to apply US government force. And democracy means we don't like the election result.
This bureau was highly active in our own elections through essentially taking that democracy predicate to argue that the US presidential election in 2016 was illegitimate, and that our democratically elected president is an autocrat. That is being massively restructured and there's only good news coming from there. At the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, the cybersecurity turned cyber censorship agency, which played the lead role in the largest political censorship event at that time, I think, in human history, the censorship of the twenty twenty election, in which tens of millions of people had their voices turned down to zero or almost zero through social media censorship coerced by CISA at the Department of Homeland Security. They are now out of the speech police business. The National Science Foundation, which is a weirdly star player in all of this.
You'll be hearing from director Bhattacharya later on why science needs free speech. Well, the National Science Foundation was the biggest domestic money gun to fund censorship organizations and AI censorship technology. During the course of the Biden administration, they expended over a $100,000,000 in grants around misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, infodemics, information literacy, digital literacy, you name it. It became the science of censorship, and now there is a hard ban at the National Science Foundation on any grant that so much as mentions the word misinformation in it. That money has been cut, and the difference it has made on the ground is huge and immediate.
At the Pentagon, the Pentagon censorship programs have been folded up, including the Minerva Initiative, the Psychological Warfare Research Center, which began to delve into the field of social media censorship to influence hearts and minds. That has been shut down by secretary Pete Hegseth. And more tens of millions of censorship grants have been cut from the NIH HHS. This administration is putting their money where their mouth is. It's not just talk.
JD Vance famously gave his remarks in Munich and Paris to talk to the international community about the threats to American speech that come from foreign governments. We're talking a fair amount about that. But there was a day one executive order on free speech, which made all these executive branch changes possible. The State Department passed a visa ban on foreign government officials who were implicated in the censorship of American speech, which they have enforced, especially in the case of the Brazil censorship judiciary, which has gone totally rogue. Those visa bans are in place.
The Canadian digital platform tax was halted because of the Trump tariff threats. Currently, we speak, trade deals between The US and EU are solved because of the EU's digital censorship act. It's technically called the digital services act, but you should not dignify it with that name. It is the digital censorship act and it factors very heavily into their attempt to revive the AI censorship Death Star we'll cover later in this. But this is an important thing to note as this deal is being negotiated.
It'd be very easy for the Trump administration to please donors and partners in the business community by simply striking a trade deal because it makes everyone a lot of money. The fact that they have put it on the line and effectively halted those trade deals purely on free speech grounds is something that I think should be commended and frankly, given the threat from that regulatory monstrosity that we'll cover, I actually think it deserves its own place in a history book. Frankly, what the White House is doing on free speech diplomacy. In addition to that, free speech diplomacy toolkit by this admin includes even things like targeted sanctions. As we saw the Magnitsky Act be applied for the first time on free speech grounds against the tyrant judge in Brazil right now, Demorais.
None of this seemed possible just a few short years ago. And I'll just give one anecdote, although I'm sure everyone in the room has felt this in the size of the juggernaut and remembers that feeling from essentially 2018 to late twenty twenty two where this seemed totally impossible to take on at all, let alone all these wins in such a short time. But I think it's best encapsulated by the Biden administration's White House Information Integrity Task Force, which I'm just going to assume that almost nobody in the room is familiar with, even though it was on whitehouse.gov. Information integrity is a term that they moved to after the disinformation governance board disaster toxified the word disinformation. But information integrity means that the world of information can be chunked into two categories, high integrity and low integrity.
High integrity information gets white listed, low information integrity news or sources or websites get blacklisted. It's that simple. But because nobody knows what that means, they get away with it. It's a rose by any other name. Well, the White House Information Integrity Interagency Task Force had 26 different federal government agencies, who all participated and contributed to a common White House run centrally coordinated government censorship apparatus.
Just to rattle off a few names, let me know if any of these sound familiar for the participating agencies in these 26 government censorship interagency working group. The Central Intelligence Agency, USAID, the State Department, the Pentagon, DARPA, NIH and HHS, ODNI. We'll be hearing from the directors of ODNI and NIH after this. On whitehouse.gov, they openly called in this task force to promote beefing up Europe's censorship laws while the White House was simultaneously working with the UK digital ministry to mutually take out each other's political opponents on either side of the pond. Essentially, the US State Department under President Biden would fund organizations in London to take out Brexit supporters, and the UK Foreign Office would fund American universities and NGOs and for profit censorship mercenary firms to take out enemies of the Biden administration.
This was The US UK special relationship truly revealed. In the words of the White House, the goal of this 26 government agency task force was to quote, mobilize governments, policy makers, researchers, entrepreneurs, businesses, individuals, communities, nonprofit organizations, libraries, museums, educational institutions, and foreign partners to combat disinformation online. It I'm hard pressed to to think of a a category, you know, the the game animal, plant, mineral. I don't know that anything that doesn't fall under that definition of who they mobilized in this whole of society effort to do so. I should note, as we are getting disclosures from this administration around things like Russiagate, around the JFK files, we just saw release of Epstein files and the like.
It bears repeating that the fact that, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency participated in a globe spanning effort to control speech on social media, harkens back to the kind of disclosures that were made during the time of the church committee around other speech police efforts by our intelligence agencies such as Operation Mockingbird and task forces from the early nineteen nineties, and these need declassification as well. This was co chaired, this White House Information Integrity Task Force did not just have the CIA directly participating in it, but it was actually co chaired by the chief of mission capabilities of the office of the director of National Intelligence. So that is ODNI was spearheading the 26 government agencies all the way down to the FDA participating in this. So what is the intelligence community doing running that and the transparency again is necessary. It was also co chaired by the Assistant Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, and the Program Director of the National Science Foundation.
So you had intelligence, ODNI, you had the White House Politicals at the Office of Science and Technology, you had the National Science Foundation. You'll notice the word science is doing a lot of work here. The field of research and development for the God button speech control technologies was, and still is framed to an unsuspecting public as ordinary course science research. And who are we to stand in the way of science? Now fortunately, almost the entire edifice constructed by the Biden administration has been torn down in just nine months, agency by agency, program by program, grant by grant.
But there are two major caveats to all this winning. The first is the clockmaker's dilemma. When a clockmaker makes a clock, even if you stop the clockmaker, the clock keeps ticking. And if the clockmaker has made a whole lot of clocks, these things all have a life of their own, even when you shut down the program that, for example, gave the seed funding to those NGOs, or for profit companies, or university centers. They are now up and running institutions unto themselves, so simply cutting the funding of who gave them their start, or who gave them a big bump, were critical parts of their funding or supply chain, so to speak, does not solve the problem they are now It helps the problem, at least it stems the bleeding.
But the blob created a gobsmacking amount of clocks. And not just in The United States, but in foreign jurisdictions such as Europe, Brazil, actually dozens of countries around the world. There are about 85 countries that are listed by USAID as having had disinformation work done and funding technology firms to scan the Internet for speech in order to apply AI pre censorship. The second caveat is that the battle is moved upstream. And I sort of think of this as a thumbie war analogy.
We're winning the battle as it was being fought from 2018 to 2022. The censorship proponents were winning, and then the free speech proponents are winning at this level that we are fighting in. But they have now moved the battle upstream and introduced the pinky finger. And now, there's the question of, can we have a pinky finger to stop this? And let me explain what I mean by this.
Actually, let Norm Eisen explain what we mean by this. For folks who don't know, Norm Eisen was the legal hatchet man behind the Trump impeachments, the indictments, everything from the associated 65 project to go after people's lawyers, to get everyone disbarred, kind of the law fair quarterback. He called in his 2025 democracy playbook in January when Trump was first taking office. He had his seven pillars to retake democracy in The United States. Pillar six was defeat disinformation.
And what he called for was for censorship proponents to partner with the EU and Brazil and other like minded in power governments because progress on content moderation at the US federal government level had stalled. If you remember our disinformation governance board chief Nina Jankovic, what did she do after leaving DHS after that board was terminated? Went straight to London, registered as a foreign agent for the British Crown effectively, and then worked at a USA funded London based censorship shop called the Center for Information Resilience, so that you can be psychologically inoculated against misinformation online. So, this again is this pipeline where it started as this DHS thing, and they simply had the same job effectively in many ways, the same field simply funded by USAID instead of DHS. I'm going to read a quote now, which I think should be ingrained in everyone's memory.
This is from September 2023, about a year after Elon Musk's acquisition of X and the termination of the trust and safety teams, and the reforms that were done to allow accounts back on, to allow President Trump back on, to remove many of the AI filters that had gone into what was constraining your ability to talk about public health, or climate, or gender issues, or any sort of political matter at all. This is a quote from the former head of Toxic Conversations at Twitter one point o in a panel with four other folks, two of whom worked with, shall I say, traditional CIA front entities, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where Bill Burns was the head and the Atlanta Council and others with seven CIA directors on board. And what she told them is, in September 2023, if it weren't for Europe right now, I think I would feel pretty defeated and despondent in this moment. It has certainly become much more difficult for outside researchers to actually engage directly with people at the platforms because there are simply fewer of them. Now, this word researcher gets back to this idea of science.
They're not doing censorship work, they're simply studying the science of disinformation. And along the way, yeah, we may be flagging everyone we don't like, we may be pressuring companies to adopt our machine learning tens of millions of tweet bed AI censorship model in order to create this filter, so you can't talk about climate change or abortion or gender issues or whatnot. But it's all again folded under this concept of researcher. But every time you hear that, just switch the word operative, and you'll understand what they're actually saying. So she says it's become much more difficult for outside researchers to actually engage with the platforms.
Quote, we spent literally years building up relationships with good folks at all these platforms. We spent literally years building up these relationships. This is exactly what you suspected, I suspect. And for the most part, they're gone. It's really really difficult to know who to reach out to and who to work with, because no one x was taking their call, and Mark Zuckerberg had already begun a free speech turn on Facebook and Instagram.
She then says, if it weren't for the European Union and the Digital Services Act, that's the Digital Censorship Act, I don't know that we'd have much hope of rectifying that situation at all. This is two years ago. All five people on this panel are American. They're working at American organizations. And she's saying, if it weren't for the European Union and a foreign body's international censorship laws, I don't know that we'd have much hope of rectifying that situation at all.
But given the sorts of requirements for sharing disinformation risk assessments, and sharing data with researchers, again, operatives, that means internal data on the platforms with outside censorship operatives. I do think we still have some options for leverage to continue the work that we've been doing. And hopefully, ultimately, that leads to a sort of re staffing of some of these positions as the as the digital censorship act, she says, digital services act, begins to come into force and platforms feel the real force of actual enforcement action. So, are American censors turned censors in exile, who are preening for an overseas censorship regulatory regime to get them their old censorship jobs back in The United States. Because if x or Facebook or Instagram or YouTube wants to keep their 550,000,000 customer market in the EU, they need to give up all of their internal data to these outside groups, and they need to hire all these people back as part of disinformation compliance to make sure that they don't get fined into oblivion by the European Union, by The UK through its online harms act, by the new regulatory regime in Brazil around this.
What I'm trying to convey here is, this is something that tech platforms themselves cannot take on by themselves. It requires the heavy hand of the White House, of the State Department. We'll get to the solutions towards the end. But you'll notice a common theme. We're going to turn to the AI side of this, and how, for example, things like the EU Digital Censorship Act turned this AI censorship death star back on.
And a quick roadmap, we're going to cover real world examples of AI censorship in action and its impact. We're going to cover a framework for understanding it, its history and evolution, and then solutions on stopping the current crisis point. So, you'll notice a a common theme in the agencies that I described at the start of this where we're winning. I mentioned things like the State Department, the Intelligence Services, the Pentagon, USAID, and the like. These are all national security related agencies.
So either diplomacy, defense, development or intelligence. And even the participating agencies that are not directly in the national security state have a tremendous amount of tangential overlapping national security aspects to them. For example, public health is very closely tied with the military. The military provides an incredible proportion of funds to the medical establishment. If you remember, even public health administration, Operation Warp Speed, predominantly the money went to the Pentagon.
Tony Fauci got his start, the NIAID and the military nexus to the medical establishment. But while it's daunting enough to confront the national security state with all of its six ways from Sunday to get at you on philosophical grounds, it's another thing entirely to confront it on operational technological grounds. Let me first illustrate kind of the power of AI censorship and why that is the frontier right now. The title of this talk was AI censorship and the new machinery of control. But it's worth noting, this machinery is not new.
I'm not going to be talking for the next several minutes here about any hypothetical future singularity threat around AI. This is all already here, already been here, and it's permanently changed the fabric of how you can speak to your fellow citizens online. Before 2016, 0% of political speech or any text based speech on the Internet, on social media, was policed through AI filters. 0%. AI filters did exist for things like spam, to measure essentially bot type amplification, and for things like child pornography, where you had law enforcement requirements and techniques like near duplicate hashing were used, so that there was essentially a database that would be updated to make sure that no one could post that information.
It would be preempted because it would appear similar to something else in a database. But speech was not 0% again. Everything on social media pre 2016 that was flagged or taken down was done through human content moderators. It was all reactive. Someone had to flag a post, then had to go through this review process at a trust trust and safety team before it was taken down.
With the advent of the twenty sixteen election, everything changed. Because Donald Trump won on the basis of social media, because Nigel Farage's successful Brexit referendum won on the basis of social media, because frankly the CIA lost an election in Philippines that also went the same way in terms of social media. A populist wave spread across the world from Spain to Italy to The UK to France to Germany to The US to Brazil to India to The Philippines, where one by one, every election where a populist was winning, or had won or was on the verge of winning, was winning because of social media. In those countries, the candidate that the State Department wanted to win would get favorable media coverage, and they'd still lose the election, and it was because they determined empirically, it was because of free speech online, which was where folks would congregate. And so, what happened at that time was a switch was flipped.
What was happening silently in the background before 2016 was several years of technological development by the US military, the US intelligence services, the US state department, and USAID to take the relatively new phenomenon of social media speech in a big data way, and use it for the purposes of knob upturning and down turning voices online. And this was done through a technique called natural language processing, which essentially ingests huge amounts of tweets, or Facebook posts, or transcriptions of YouTube videos, and I'm talking huge, tens, hundreds of millions of these, and then uses a model based on keywords, slogans, hashtags, sentiment analysis, and these models are fine tuned in order to target a narrative, or a dialect, or a way of speaking, a linguistic pattern, to identify wrong speakers and wrong speech, so that they can be pre censored, so they can be censored at scale. This solves the problem that they were having at the time, that there were not enough human moderators to take out all the categories of speech that they wanted. Now, was originally developed by DARPA to stop ISIS in the run up to boots on the ground in Syria, when ISIS was said to be promoting terrorists on Twitter and Facebook.
There was a military a perceived military need to develop technology to see how ISIS propagandists spread their message online. What kind of prefixes, suffixes, the the particular language. And then, DARPA provided the funding to create this technology, so that social media companies would be told by the Global Engagement Center, rest in peace, to shut that down. But in 2016, they used the excuse of Russian disinformation to take that same anti ISIS AI censorship technology to turn it against the Trump movement in The United States, the Brexit movement in The UK, the AFD movement in Germany, the Polish PIS party, the National Front National Assembly in France. Basically, all of NATO's enemies were effectively targeted as if they were foreign terrorists.
And just to cover the scale of this, the twenty twenty election, I mentioned that DHS played the lead role in censoring that. But how was that done? Why was it that you couldn't question mail in ballots, early voting drop boxes, or questions with potential election machine insecurities? Well, DHS partnered with this group, the Election Integrity Project. They labeled 22,000,000 tweets as being mis or disinformation incidents, part of misinformation narratives.
They did not manually review 22,000,000 tweets for that. What they did is they ingested 859,000,000 tweets during the election cycle, and then used a essentially proprietary machine learning model to simply take all of the keywords associated with the Trump movement. Things like stop the steal, or things like ballot harvesting, or terms like illegitimate. They get assigned a waiting in the filters, and then it's fine tuned over time. There were military contractors like MITRE, who developed what was called the squint software for election officials to use AI censorship to pre flag this, and the result was the mass censorship of an entire election.
Now, why was this not here in 2024? Well, this was because the AI censorship super weapon was temporarily depowered in The United States. When Elon Musk changed the rate limit, if folks remember, in the, I believe, the 2023, so that you could only ingest a limited number of posts per day, you could only ingest, I think it was something up 5,000 or 10,000 posts per day. You simply could not ingest the AI fast enough to be able to create a model in time to sensor in real time. In addition to that, they changed the pricing.
They made the API for S go from just a few thousand dollars a month to hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. Something that only enterprise clients like Google or Microsoft could afford to pay. So all of these little USA funded, Pentagon funded, on a government grant that's paying for staff and overhead could not afford to create their AI censorship superweapon. They still needed it to do their work, but they could not access it or afford it anymore. Places like Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg shut down Crowdtangle, the AI censorship basis for being able to get all the proprietary data from Facebook.
But I bring this up in part because as we speak today, the House Judiciary Committee is having a hearing on European censorship. This EU digital censorship act compels that data to be given up to a vetted researchers, outside operatives, so that they can put the power back into this thing that has been killed here effectively in The United States. So they want to rev this back up, so we're back under twenty twenty conditions. I should note that NATO itself, there are very serious concerns, however you feel about NATO, with continuing NATO funding at the appropriate level without conditions. The NATO 2030 concept called for quote, twenty four seven disinformation monitoring systems driven by artificial intelligence in order to protect the political aspect of NATO's operations and make sure that they don't fall out of funding favor.
The UK. There's a lot going on in The UK right now on the censorship front. Just yesterday, a very famous median, Graham Linehan, was arrested flying back from Arizona to The UK for three tweets that he made, which were just jokes about gender identity effectively. He's met by five armed security guards the moment he landed in Heathrow Airport after flying from The United States. The UK has over 30 arrests per day for online social media speech.
The Times reported 12,000 arrests per year. The UK is now averaging for political speech on X and Facebook. This is being pre flagged through AI censorship dash dashboards such as Hate Lab. Hate Lab started off from 2013 to 2015 doing the same sort of counterinsurgency, counter terrorism work, working with the UK Foreign Office and associated government institutions in The UK. But then when the Brexit referendum happened in 2016, in tandem with their US censorship partners, they pivoted to going after the Brexit movement and created a hate speech dashboard.
It is a real time twenty four seven early warning radar system, so that every member of Metropolitan Police Department in London gets a real time feed across the Internet of every tweet that you post. Every Facebook post, it has a confidence level, a toxicity score associated with it. They were funded by the US Justice Department, by the way, I should note. In part because of what I'm trying to describe to you, which is this nexus between our clock makers and the clocks that are now ticking abroad. Unfortunately, our own government is is responsible for countless arrests happening right now in The UK because of this AI censorship story.
They just waved me, but I didn't know if they were saying hi, or saying five minutes, or saying now? Oh, oh, we're done now. Okay. I'm on Okay. I'm on page three of like 30.
Okay. All right. All right. Let me just All right. Just last last thing is just solutions on where to go from here.
So number one, total transparency and declassification from this administration. The USAID files have to made be made completely public. Every aspect of the Pentagon's The Global Engagement Center files have to be made public. A message needs to be sent that if you are in this line of business, censoring people's God given and First Amendment protected free speech rights in this country, everything that you do as a part of this government that infringes on those rights will be made public one day. So, be careful about doing this in the next administration, because it will be your turn in the sunlight, and every email you send, every analyst memo you write, will be read by tens of millions of people with potential penalties to follow.
Number two is free speech diplomacy, amped up to 11. Trade aid arms sanctions, retaliatory regulatory regimes against EU member states for enforcement of the DSA, as well as even potentially taking the legacy function that still survives at USAID to fund free speech organizations rather than censorship ones. Third is a full review and cuts to foreign universities and NGOs, especially those in London, Oxford, Cambridge, Sheffield, Cardiff, King's College, London School of Back Oh, God. Oh, God. Okay.
Alright. Fourth fourth of condition, NATO funding until they get rid of the AI censorship work that they're doing and all the social cohesion funds. Thank you.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Harvard is not what it seems. Watch all 11 minutes here to begin to understand the scale of what you are up against. https://t.co/WaEHCfW1au
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike describes Harvard as "the university supercenter of the blob" and says Trump "has picked a fight with the universities" by banning new visas and forcing "all existing international students must transfer to another school." He cites "noncompliance with federal government edicts"—"Antisemitism was one," "Harboring violence was another," "Noncompliance with DEI edicts was another," and "Noncooperation with efforts to reduce CCP and Chinese influence over the universities." Harvard was set to receive "$9,000,000,000" in federal grants, but the administration "killed $2,200,000,000" and "five days ago removed another 450,000,000." It is scrambling into "private equity" and "donor" funding in a "pay to play scheme" with foreign donations. Belfer Center figures "Erica Chenoweth" and "Maria Stephan" promote "nonviolent action" as a "total hoax" and "color revolution" tactics. Harvard is "not a university... a business" run by the "Harvard Corporation" led by "Penny Pritzker," tied to CIA and USAID; "Harvard endowment in seizing Eurasia from Russia" and "Tesla takedowns" and "topple the government of Yugoslavia."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mike, I just wanna tee you up. You know, Harvard is such a node, a nexus point of all of these sort of, I don't know, globalist ops, clandestine ops, who knows, whatever you wanna call it. You can articulate it better than I can. But walk us through your thoughts, on secretary Noem's letter.
Speaker 1: Well, Harvard is the university supercenter of the blob. Harvard is very much not what it seems, but what's happening right now is something very seismic. Just like when Trump went after USAID in the first month in office and sort of walked up to one of the meanest, toughest, baddest gang members in prison on day one, Trump, has picked a fight with the universities because of the abject corruption of the entire university system, has walked up to the biggest, baddest of the universities with a $50,000,000,000 endowment and probably the the highest pedigree of any university in this country in terms of how it's publicly known and moved to totally decimate many aspects of their relationship with the US government, are vast. Harvard predates the founding of this country by almost a century, actually. What's happened today is a a move to ban not just all student visas, so no new international students at Harvard.
They're not allowed to get new international students in from this day forward. But in addition, all existing international students must transfer to another school. So they are not just not allowed going forward, but all of the existing international students will have to go to a different university. Now the the Trump administration has said this is because of noncompliance with federal government edicts. They gave several reasons.
Antisemitism was one. Harboring violence was another. Noncompliance with DEI edicts was another. Noncooperation with efforts to reduce CCP and Chinese influence over the universities. They basically threw the kitchen sink at Harvard.
And understand, coming into the Trump administration, Harvard had is set to receive $9,000,000,000 in existing grants from the US federal government. $9,000,000,000 of subsidies from the federal government. I mean, if you can just think of the scale of that money, if a lot of people think that Harvard rose to its prominence because it's the best, it hires the best, it's got the strictest admission rates. Well, if you tried to create an a university to compete with Harvard, you're not competing with Harvard. You're competing with the US federal government who is propping up Harvard and picking Harvard as the winner.
The reason they can afford to hire the most highest pedigreed scientists or have the facilities that they can offer and and research resources they can offer to their students and faculty is because it's paid for by you, the taxpayer. So it's not a level playing field. They get a giant super boost. Now the Trump administration last week actually killed $2,200,000,000 worth of 9,000,000,000, and then five days ago removed another 450,000,000. So Harvard is now scrambling into the financial space, into the private equity world, and into the donor world to try to frantically offset that funding.
And then in the middle of this, the student visas are being revoked for international students, and the transfers are being forced, which means Harvard's ability to recapitalize by going to foreign sources may also be greatly impeded because a lot of the donations that come from foreign countries come from elites in foreign countries who make giant donations to Harvard. And then, lo and behold, their sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, family mascot, and cousin's dog are enrolled at Harvard. It is a pay to play scheme when it comes to these sorts of contributions to get your children in to places like Harvard and the Ivy League. And with less leverage to be able to offer to foreign countries because they can't guarantee a slot simply by paying their way in. This is yet another crisis for the university.
I have a lot of thoughts on beyond that, but I can pause there. It's phase one.
Speaker 0: We've been seeing going on with the resistance and opposition to president Trump. Obviously, the center for nonviolent protests under Erica Chenoweth has been partnering with democratic members of congress to train their, you know, paramilitary forces how to oppose president Trump. Can you sort of bring us up to speed how we've seen them weaponize against Trump two point o?
Speaker 1: Totally. Virtually every center institute and department at Harvard is weaponized against the Trump administration at every level through their back channeling with intelligence, through their back channeling with the state department, through their back channeling with the defense sector, through their back channeling with the US chamber of commerce, multinational corporations, through their back channeling with the NGOs. You gave the example of Erica Chenoweth, as well as her coauthor of, one of her recent books, Maria Stephan. The two of them are both associated with the Harvard Belfer Center. The Harvard Belfer Center is one of these heart of darkness places within Harvard that is is tightly involved in organizing what they call nonviolent action, which is a total hoax term.
It's a whenever you say nonviolent action, what they mean is the end stages of a color revolution where violent protesters who are not killing people with machine guns, but are rather throwing Molotov cocktails in police cars and breaking glass and setting buildings on fire. But they're not killing everyone as they do it. They're simply destroying everything and terrorizing everyone. They call that nonviolent action. Now, you know, if I take a a sip of water, I don't have to say that I'm nonviolently taking a sip of water.
That phrase in and of itself connotes, at the very least, quasi violent action, but it's all done through orchestrating mobs. And Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, both at the Harvard Belfer Center, have been so called scholars in this space. These these are these operators who masquerade as being researchers. So they they write white papers. They write, academic literature on the science of how to organize a riot.
How do you mobilize youth engagement? What messaging works? And then they also hold
Speaker 0: Mike, we're coming up against a break, so I'm gonna hold you there. I know the audience is gonna kill me. We've gotta go to commercial break. I'm sorry. Mike Benz, I think we still got you.
If you can sort of walk us through, again, this idea that it's president Trump who is going after Harvard, that's victim blaming. He's the one that has been the MAGA movement assaulted by this institution and its kind, for years. Pick up where you left off.
Speaker 1: Harvard is not a university. It's a business. Harvard University is run by a 12 person board through the Harvard Corporation. The Harvard Corporation is what runs Harvard University, and the top, the the the head of the Harvard Corporation is Penny Pritzker. Penny Pritzker was previously the chair of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
If that sounds familiar, it's because that's the organization that was run for seven years by Bill Burns, the man elected by Joe Biden to be the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Harvard is essentially a foreign policy tool that merges financial markets with intelligence and statecraft to impact global policy, foreign policy, and and the domestic drivers of foreign policy, which include running out a president who might oppose a foreign policy that interferes with Harvard's bottom line. Harvard invests deeply and has since the since the Cold War ended. Harvard has been deeply invested through the Harvard Endowment in seizing Eurasia from Russia, which mean which puts Harvard directly at the center of Russiagate. In the nineteen nineties, everyone can look up a great article called the Harvard Boys Do Russia or any deep dive you wanna go down on in in a little place called the Harvard Institute for International Development and its role in privatizing and stealing the wealth of Central and Eastern European countries, and particularly Russia, during the nineteen nineties.
And if that name sounds familiar, the Harvard Institute for International Development may sound a little bit like The United States Agency For International Development, USAID. Harvard had its own USAID cell. They got half a billion dollars from USAID to be the long arm of USAID to loot the economic wealth of Russia in the nineteen nineties in tandem with George Soros. Harvard was doing the dirty work of the US government by putting its economists over there, by putting its liaisons over there, by building up a giant network over there, midwifing that process. And in return, the Harvard endowment got noncompetitive bids and private access at fire sale prices to the publicly held wealth of foreign countries.
They did the same thing in Ukraine. They did the same thing all over Central And Eastern Europe. If there is neutrality with Russia, all of those assets and investments are threatened to go in the tank. Now because the Harvard senior leadership and elite class has been completely merged with the CIA, the state department, and the defense department, and USAID for seven decades now. There has never really been an inch of daylight between what Harvard has called for and what the Bush family or the Biden family or Obama family called for.
As I mentioned, Penny I mentioned Penny Pritzker. It's the it's the Pritzker family in Chicago that spawned Barack Obama. What I'm getting at here is Harvard through virtually every cell from the Belfer Center to the Kennedy School to the Shorenstein Center to the Kennedy Center to the Berkman Klein Center. Every single one of these is chock full of programs that go directly against, in fact, or set up whole training modules and global networks to stop the agenda of the very government that is funding them. This these people, we people, voted for that government.
We are not voting to send our dollars to Harvard any longer. And on that, just a one last thing because we mentioned Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stefan and these other, mob violence organizers, they were tightly involved with the Tesla takedowns. So while Harvard is getting $9,000,000,000 of your tax money, these people are glorifying and strategizing, actually helping strategize the direction of what is effectively, and I don't mean to throw this term around so I can try to soften it, but something somewhat adjacent to domestic terrorism. Arson, intimidation, destruction of private property, all for the political purpose of removing someone who isn't even the president from being able to advise the president. This is the sort of stuff that Harvard does because Harvard builds these networks.
They serve as a CIA backed channel, a state department backed channel in foreign countries so that when we topple the government of Yugoslavia and then those same financial and corporate investors gobble up those assets, Harvard endowment invests in those companies. So Harvard has these trainees and spawns and faculty members and professionals in their centers and institutes who organize these riots to topple governments so that the new government will be pliant and give everything the corporations Harvard invest in. It's a giant racket, and we can't let them do that to our own country like they've done to dozens of countries around the world.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Firing Squad. At the very least. If you really want all the little Discord freaks and aspiring Antifa assassins to never, ever, ever think about trying this again, spill this killer’s guts open so wide, make his death so humiliating, that no one will want their guts opened next. https://t.co/urqaWCJH7i
Video Transcript AI Summary
So as we find this monster, I want him strung up.
I want crows to eat his insides out.
I want to be publicly televised after a guilty verdict due process and administered by the law.
But I want the most monstrous, gruesome death that we just had to watch.
I want that to be etched into the halls of eternity so that anyone who tries to do anything like this ever again sees what their own insides look like on national television.
And their family will have to see it the way Charlie's has had to see his.
I don't think I I think about whoever did this if they had to stand in a room with Charlie and how Charlie would tower over them, how they wouldn't stand a chance in a fist fight or a verbal fight or anything.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as we find this monster, I want him strung up. I want crows to eat his insides out. I want to be publicly televised after a guilty verdict due process and administered by the law. But I want the most monstrous, gruesome death that we just had to watch. I want that to be etched into the halls of eternity so that anyone who tries to do anything like this ever again sees what their own insides look like on national television.
And their family will have to see it the way Charlie's has had to see his. I don't think I I think about whoever did this if they had to stand in a room with Charlie and how Charlie would tower over them, how they wouldn't stand a chance in a fist fight or a verbal fight or anything. And a coward, a pussy, I whoever that is, the most unspeakable things have to be administered by our law enforcement.
@TheLegalMindset - Legal Mindset
Regarding the Charlie Kirk suspect when caught, people need to remember that Utah not only has the death penalty but it still carries out execution by firing squad. https://t.co/Y5EqQFFitR
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Incredible. Per @DataRepublican AFL-CIO receives more from YOU THE TAXPAYER ($72 million) each year in federal grants than it receives from membership dues from its own union members ($69 million). https://t.co/wHi5wD2BIq
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
In fact, AFL-CIO receives more in taxpayer money than they do in membership dues. https://t.co/mUgtdOg4Wy
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
🚨 We need the USAID Files now 🚨 "We are sitting on the Library of Alexandria of hidden American history and no one has even opened the door."
reSee.it AI Summary
John Brennan and James Clapper, after their involvement in Russiagate, have been appointed to the Biden DHS's Domestic Intelligence Experts Group, where they targeted Trump supporters as domestic terrorists. I found documents revealing a classified plan to monitor political dissent. Thankfully, the damage from this targeting was limited due to the efforts of @StephenM and @GeneHamiltonUSA at @America1stLegal, who successfully dissolved the Brennan-Clapper DHS unit through a lawsuit, leading to the turnover of internal documents.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
John Brennan and James Clapper didn't go away after cooking up Russiagate. Brennan and Clapper were elevated to Biden DHS's Domestic Intelligence Experts Group, where they targeted Trump supporters as domestic terrorists and bragged about the "political advantage" of doing so. https://t.co/E1jMt4iqtv
@America1stLegal - America First Legal
/1🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨 We obtained new docs from the Brennan-Clapper DHS intel group revealing the Biden admin developed a classified plan to expand monitoring of political dissent. #DeepStateDiaries PART 5: https://t.co/1rQlUqNJdo
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Thank God the damage from this explicit domestic political targeting was limited because of the incredible work of @StephenM and @GeneHamiltonUSA at @America1stLegal, who successfully got the Brennan-Clapper DHS unit dissolved in a lawsuit. https://t.co/UO5WWElpE2
@America1stLegal - America First Legal
/1🚨VICTORY🚨 The Biden Admin will dissolve & disband its unlawful DHS Intelligence Experts Group stacked with deep state partisans like James Clapper and John Brennan following our lawsuit with @RichardGrenell They are also turning over their internal docs to our possession: https://t.co/vFK3uSszbF
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Stopping Norm Eisen's Blob Ops With Mass Declassifications. My chat with @nataliegwinters on the necessity of USAID Files, State Dept Files & US Institute of Peace Files to root out the Eisen network's use of government connections to conduct Blob Ops on the outside. https://t.co/voGPfwUbUd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says he began in 2020 to combine the most successful coup fighters with experts who helped study or defeat autocracy internationally, visiting Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Czech Republic, and forming a plan over four years. "twice as many protests in 2025 as there were in 2021."
Speaker 2 outlines Norm Eisen’s "democracy playbook" with seven pillars: "controlling elections, controlling the courts, fighting corruption, basically, painting Trump as an autocrat, reinforcing civic and media space," and pillar six: "controlling disinformation," noting that "states may find partners in allied regulators over social media such as the EU and Brazil." Eisen recruited people for his new blob shop from folks who overturned basically regimes that he called autocratic. "All these people get paid to fight autocracy abroad through the State Department, USAID, the US Institute of Peace, the Department of Defense, Civil Military." The playbook cites USAID "37 times," funding "media allies for the blob" and projects like "the corruption reporting project in Ukraine" and "a billion dollar USAID loan guarantee" to remove Victor Shokin. It also discusses "designating elections as critical infrastructure" and a "slush fund" to pay state secretaries, plus "strategic non cooperation."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We I started combining the most successful coup fighters that I came across in my work in 2020 with experts who had helped study or defeat autocracy internationally. So we went to places over the intervening years like Hungary, but we also looked at places like Poland, Brazil, Czech Republic, the country where I served as ambassador, where there were successful ousters in recent years of autocratic regimes, and we came together over that four year period with a plan. Do you know that there's twice as many protests in 2025 as there were in 2021.
Speaker 1: My head was blowing up. I sent this to Steve. He's like, we gotta do a two hour special on this and, of course, get Mike Benz. I'm curious your sort of reactions to Norm Eisen admitting that. An inter interview probably should be, like, evidence somewhere for some case.
Speaker 2: It might end up being one day in the not too distant future. We are we're in a period of incredible transformative change right now within The United States of the structures that Norm Eisen has depended on for power and to project as the sort of quarterback of this blob, the various instruments of blob power from the courts to the streets with the protests, to the bureaucracy, to the funding mechanism of The US budget. And I do want to read a passage actually from that democracy playbook. I'm I'm proud to say that I think I was the first person to ever publish about the democracy playbook of Norm Eisen in 2019 when he was just coming onto the radar of this. I published in in Revolver together with Darren Beatty kind of the the definitive Norm Eisen piece, which ended up blowing up, and I think putting much of this on the map.
But this playbook is a very instructive, annually updated tool that's kind of a consensus building tool out of the Brookings Institution, which is known as the top ranked think tank in The United States. It's not really a think tank at all. It is a blob consensus building mechanism with very strange links to The US intelligence apparatus, I should note. The CIA in the nineteen eighties would send people to CIA agents to Brookings for training. Brookings has an intelligence and governance section.
Norm Eisen himself was a state department ambassador. The ambassadors play the coordinating role in a region with statecraft and intelligence. And I I want to note that there are the seven pillars that Norm Eisen describes in the 2025 playbook are controlling elections, controlling the courts, fighting corruption, basically, you know, painting Trump as an autocrat, reinforcing civic and media space. That means a full court press on NGOs and so called civil society organizations and control over the media. But pillar six is very interesting because it's called controlling disinformation, and I want to read a passage from this section.
He sort of bemoans the existence of the First Amendment in saying that federal action may be uncertain as Trump controls the executive branch, but that at the state level, state governments should try to pursue censorship policies. Of course, we saw this with the state of California pass trying to pass laws to go after x and force all sorts of transparency and accountability requirements on social media companies. We saw the same thing done in Michigan. But what they note what Normaiza notes is that states may find partners in allied regulators over social media such as the EU and Brazil. So this is Norm Eisen, as as you heard in this clip, noting that he recruited people for his new blob shop from folks who overturned basically regimes that he called autocratic, which, of course, he has to when it when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
All these people get paid to fight autocracy abroad through the State Department, USAID, the US Institute of Peace, the Department of Defense, Civil Military. But the fact that Norm Eisen is telling states to go and work with the absolutely crooked, abjectly tyrannical censor state of Brazil to try to find allies between Democrat Party censorship activists in The United States and a foreign government which is putting tens of thousands of people in prison, which is banned by judicial edict president Bolsonaro from having a social media account, from having his inner from participating in public interviews, from having those interviews shared on social media. That is who Norm Eisen and the Democrat party are looking to as allies to commonly fight social media free speech. It's absolutely insane, but what I what I want to note here is we're we're at a time of change, and we are seeing declassifications now happening at breakneck pace. We saw the JFK files mass declassified.
We saw the Martin Luther King files declassified. We saw the Crossfire Hurricane documents declassified. We saw the classified annex involving George Soros and Leonard Bernardo, who also, as you posted this clip, Natalie, if you recall, Leonard Bernardo, the clip that you posted, what was he myopically obsessed with? Stopping misinformation and disinformation and how can we take on social media freedom. But the fact is is you have you you have these internal documents at the State Department in USAID and the US Institute of Peace.
And it is my hope, my dream that we get USAID files. We get State Department democracy rights and labor files. That's the group that Norm Eisen's crew works with within the State Department, this democracy money spigot. Labor involves the getting mass street street muscle. What I found this week, which I went over with on a in a private lecture, but I'll be posting later this week, are are incredible riot training documents from the US federal government to NGOs to help them organize the kind of street protests that Norm Eisen depends on in order to project political power artificially into a system where his own side has been outvoted.
The US Institute of Peace, for example, which Darren Beatty has just become the new acting president of, has entire courses instructing NGOs how to start rental riots, how to shut down highways, and block traffic. It's one thing when you have First Amendment protected freedom of assembly. Obviously, the right to protest is sacrosanct in this country. But what you have out of Norma
Speaker 1: is shot. Gonna do what the audience is gonna get really mad at me for. We're coming up against a break. It's not up to me, but I'm gonna hold you through because I wanna expand on that and how this also comes back to declaring elections as critical infrastructure. I think it's also interesting throughout the that democracy playbook document.
USAID is mentioned, I think, what is it, like, dozen times. And I remember that they actually make the key point, which is that USAID was so essential, not just for the censorship. I even think we saw that in the declassified. I think it was also by DNI Tulsi, but Biden's censorship plan. But that sort of on the counterpoint or the foil to that was that USAID, as Norm sort of wrote, was going to be a key component of the proactive media coverage to sort of depict president Trump as an autocrat, which frankly, I think explains a lot of the apoplexy over the dismantling of USAID in the early days of the Trump administration because that was going to kind of be ground zero, right, for the for the resistance.
You you can pick up where where you left off. But last point, because I like to just give you time so the audience doesn't get mad at me. But talking about how they've also declared elections critical infrastructure. Obviously, Norm has played, you know, a key role in a lot of the election litigation. But even in the democracy playbook, there's a bizarre section where they talk about wanting to bring in international election observers somehow affiliated with the EU into The United States to, like, endorse weird standards of transparency and openness and equality and all these sort of nebulous terms that I think you and I and the audience know all too well are frequently misappropriated to just basically usher in censorship or just, you know, democrat wins.
But I'm curious your kind of broader analysis.
Speaker 2: Yes. 37 times. The democracy playbook 2025 by Norm Eisen references USAID 37 times and includes the power of USAID to fund media allies for the blob. They cite USAID's role in supporting groups like the corruption reporting project in Ukraine, which ended up indirectly kicking off the twenty nineteen Trump impeachment by trying to dig up dirt on Rudy Giuliani using US taxpayer funds to do so, and then using that as part of the basis for the Trump impeachment. USAID has been the normalizing playground.
It's been the normalizing slush fund to run money to media organizations, to street protesters, to to bribe governments in order to control the prosecutors. We saw, for example, the billion dollar USAID loan guarantee, which was weaponized by vice president Joe Biden to remove Victor Shokin who was investigating Burisma. And it's no surprise that Norm Eisen was representing the federal employees trying to stop the shutdown of USAID through the AFL CIO lawsuit against against the Trump administration. Norm Eisen also led the cabal with the lawsuits against shutting down the State Department's Global Engagement Center. This is a State Department USAID NATO network, and this is why you see the references to the EU all over this as well.
The EU has has the biggest censorship tool in human existence at its fingers now, as just July 1, just over a month ago, their code of practice on disinformation became mandatory. And the goal of it is to control the speech within America by forcing companies to either censor speech in America that the EU says or lose 550,000,000 customers of those social media companies in the EU. Norm Eisen knows about this leverage. He was an integral part in the creation of these regulatory tools. He's had his eye on it for eight years now at this point and works very closely with with these same networks.
On the point about the critical infrastructure, this was a legacy of Russiagate on 01/06/2017, which was the real January 6 when something that actually changed and undermined the government was done. It was that was the day that the intelligence community assessment, giving the intelligence community a premature to saying that Russia hacked our elections and Russia stole the twenty sixteen election. Just an hour after that came out, the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama designated elections, the metaphysical concept of elections as critical infrastructure, giving the US federal government jurisdiction over elections, which it had not had two and a half centuries. Elections were always controlled by the state governments. All 50 states, both Democrats and Republicans, all 50 state secretary of states opposed outgoing DHS secretary Jed Johnson's designation of elections as critical infrastructure, giving DHS the power to essentially control and administer the voting machines used in all 50 states, as well as a variety of other election processes.
Why do we still have elections designated as critical infrastructure when we know this only happened because of the lie that Russia stole the twenty sixteen election, and so we need a federal government to defend against this phantom Russia threat. This was something all 50 states opposed. The only reason that the states ended up coming on board with it was for two reasons. You had the first DHS secretary. Trump ended up firing six different DHS secretaries during the first four years of his his first term, but the initial DHS secretary ratified it before he became the White House chief of staff, and they paid the states to go along with it.
They they opened up a giant multi $100,000,000 slush fund to pay the state secretary of state offices if they worked with the Department of Homeland Security and essentially got rid of their objection. So we we pay a a federal government office to maintain, to usurp the control of elections held by states, and then we pay for another federal government slush fund to bribe the states to go along with it. We're talking now about getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is state sanctioned waste, fraud, and abuse. It has to be undone immediately.
The last thing that I'll say is that we were talking before the break about the need for USAID files and State Department files and U. S. Institute of Peace files on the connective tissue between the illegal conspiracies carried out by Norm Eisen's group when they engage in illegal protest activity. Now, protest act activity is obviously protected on the First Amendment. But when you see things like what happened in Minneapolis in 2020 and across the country in the 2020, or you see what was done in Los Angeles, the ICE riots.
There is a concept promoted by the same state department, US USAID, US Institute of Peace Networks that Norm Eisen works with called strategic non cooperation. And by that, they mean non cooperation with the state. Through that concept, they engage in illegal activities such as the shutting down of critical infrastructure, the shutting down of critical highway and transport lanes in order to bring a government to its knees. This is not the same thing as First Amendment protected protests where you're simply marching on public property with signs. This is effectively a form of domestic terrorism to shut down highways and shut down trade so that people, mothers pregnant in their cars can't get to a hospital, so that people can't get to work.
This is an organized conspiracy when it's planned ahead of time. Norm Eisen's fascination with declaring every protest spontaneous is specifically because he knows where his own weaknesses are. To the extent that these protests, the illegal aspect of them, the violence, the provocation with police, the shutdown of highways, I believe these need to be prosecuted criminally, and every government document in the federal government's possession about the coordination and organization of illegal shutdowns of American cities has to now be made public. I believe there needs to be an interagency transparency team. It can be led by the White House National Security Council.
It should have representatives from investigators at the State Department, from the legacy USAID function, from the US Institute of Peace, from the Pentagon Civil Military Branch, and it should have a committed focus on disclosing all of the names, all of the manuals, all of the white papers, all of the emails, all the text messages, all the third party contractors that have been used to support this rogue criminal network for the past ten years. I think that will go a long way towards restoring international trust in American diplomatic organs, and it will be something that can be used as a reference guide for the entire American citizenry a hundred years from now to understand how their own government works with these outside blob organizations like Norm Eisen Shoppe in order to control the streets and bring a country to its knees.
Speaker 1: Two hundred days down. It sounds like we got some nice marching orders for the outstanding, what, three years and a hundred and sixty five days. Mike Benz, we gotta drop you. We got other news to get to, though. Think you and I could probably talk for hours.
Where can people go to follow you and stay up to date with everything you're working
Speaker 2: Follow me on x at Mike Ben Cyber. I'm also on Rumble and YouTube.
Speaker 1: 37 mentions. I like how you knew that off the top of your head with regard to USAID.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The FBI will raid your house to steal every digital device to you own to scour every text, every email, every search engine search, every website you ever visited, but the FBI’s top spy chief had the wayback machine purge every public tweet he ever made from the Internet forever.
@HansMahncke - Hans Mahncke
@kylenabecker @petestrzok @X Why did the Wayback Machine scrubb Strzok’s tweets? Who gave the order? https://t.co/Evb7KF4QWf
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Here are rioters smashing the windows of LAPD headquarters one day after LAPD called them “peaceful protesters” https://t.co/CjuTUOl8jd
@LAPDPIO - LAPD PIO
LAPD News: Los Angeles Police Department Statement Regarding Today's Peaceful Protests https://t.co/Il8RMlytx4
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Bono's first foray into "philanthropy," the Live Aid music concerts of the 1980s, raised $100 million for famine relief in Ethiopia. BBC later reported that just $5 million of it went to food -- $95 million of it went to buy guns and organize CIA-backed warlords. https://t.co/hdI1qd7lNM
Video Transcript AI Summary
$95 million of famine relief funds was spent on weapons and political machinery, while only $5 million went to food. An organization allegedly used cash meant for starving people to fund attempts to overthrow the government in a bloody civil war. $95 million went to buy guns and organize the political arm of a CIA-backed rebel group.
300,000 people have already died from USAID cutoffs, with 50,000 tons of food rotting in Djibouti and South Africa. The State Department considered the targeted government a threat to democracy and a pawn of Russia. The groups they funded aimed to cause and win a bloody civil war, using famine relief programs to buy guns and escalate the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 95,000,000 was spent on weapons and the political machinery of the party. Just 5,000,000 was used to help the famine relief. So Bono's out there on his guitar. I still haven't found what I'm looking for. They raise a hundred million dollars to stop famine, and only 5,000,000 goes to food.
95 fucking million dollars of it goes to my guns. And organize the political arm of the CIA backed rebel group. Fuck you, Bono.
Speaker 1: Three hundred thousand people have already died from just this cut off, this hard cut of USAID. So this food rotting 50,000 tons of food stored in Djibouti, South Africa.
Speaker 0: Keep that in mind what he said about the food. Okay? The food is rotting. The food. The food.
The food. The food. The The food. They say the organization used the cash meant to pay food for the starving to fund attempts to overthrow the government in a bloody civil war. Understand.
The state department hated that government. We called them a threat to democracy. We said they were pawns of Russia. They were under Soviet influence. And the groups were funding to overthrow them to cause and then win a bloody civil war is what the famine relief relief program was buying the fucking guns for, to cause and escalate a fucking civil war.
Not famine relief. Civil war. Bloody civil war. One of the rebels who was involved in the fucking bloody civil war estimated that of the $95,000,000 of aid money, including Band Aid, just 5,000,000 was used to help the famine relief. 95 fucking million dollars of it goes to buy guns.
reSee.it AI Summary
Before this account disappears, I have a sincere question for X leadership: why do social media platforms quickly purge the accounts of mass shooters, leaving the public to scramble to archive data? I'm trying to understand if this is due to external law enforcement requirements or internal policies aimed at preventing the spread of killer manifestos. If it's the latter, a 15-day archival period would be beneficial.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Before this account disappears, my genuine & sincere question to X leadership is: why do social media platforms so immediately purge the accounts of mass shooters, so the public must frantically dash to imperfectly archive years of data in just hours? What drives this policy? https://t.co/lD5vxzVexn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following mass shootings, social media platforms like X, Facebook, and YouTube often delete the shooter's social media presence during active inquiries. This purging of social media data makes it difficult for researchers and the public to understand the events and the shooter's mindset. The speaker is archiving what appears to be the social media account of a recent shooter but is concerned about potential future legal implications of possessing this data. The speaker questions why this information is immediately purged, asking if law enforcement requests it, if an archive version is retained, or if it's due to terms of service violations. The speaker seeks transparency from X leadership regarding this practice, as the Wayback Machine doesn't fully capture all posts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is a question for x leadership. And I think in this case, I probably speak for millions or tens of millions of people who have the same thought. After a mass shooting event, Twitter and then x as well as Facebook and YouTube, have a habit of deleting the social media presence of the shooter when there's an active public inquiry into what gave rise to the shooting, what their thoughts, mental processes, history of posting was. And typically speaking, this is actually the most important source of information for the public to actually understand an event of public consequence, their social media posting history. And every mass shooting, there's a purge of all the social media data.
And it makes it very difficult for researchers or anyone who wants to investigate independently to actually see what they've been doing over the years. And so I I just stumbled upon what appears to be the social media account of the shooter and last night's tragedy in Washington DC. And I'm instantly in archiving mode. Try and then I'm worried, okay, if I save these photos to my phone, is the FBI going to potentially think that because I've saved them for some weird reason one day, ten, twenty, thirty years from now if the FBI ever subpoenas my iCloud for some random unrelated thing. I don't want to have possession of this shooter's stuff.
I want to see the social media history like I see everybody else's, but I'm afraid that there is going to be a purge of that information and that other things like the wayback machine do not capture every post. The wayback machine is very imperfect when it comes to this. So given that, my question is is why why is it all purged immediately? Is there some transparency you can provide? Does federal law enforcement or local law enforcement demand you do they send you a notice telling you to remove the social media accounts because subsequent comments on the page might muddy their own history.
Do they get an archive version of the account? Is it done because it's a terms of service violation if the if if the person engaged in, you know, terroristic behavior. I think it's a giant mystery to me. I think it's a giant mystery to tens, hundreds of millions of people. Is someone at x senior leadership or a spokesperson able to tell us why that info is purged?
Thanks.
@kyotoleather - kyodo.leather 🇵🇸 🇾🇪
Escalate For Gaza, Bring The War Home (2 of 2) https://t.co/wPhbmpnOup
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I’m just trying to understand. Is it external forces or agencies requiring you take it down for law enforcement purposes? Is it internal policy around not wanting mass killer manifestos to spread / popularize? If the latter, some 15-day period for archival purposes would be good
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The Blob's Hit List Of Countries To Install Controls https://t.co/ccqc3GZ29f
Video Transcript AI Summary
A map of populism is described as a CIA drone strike list, funded by USAID and potentially NATO. The European Center for Populism Studies frames anti-globalization, anti-establishment, and anti-corruption sentiments as populism factors.
The speaker claims that being against communism lowers a country's democracy score on the map. They suggest that countries with scores below 50 are targets for CIA regime change operations. Examples include Australia pushing LNG exports amid the Russia-Ukraine war, and digital authoritarianism being attributed to meme-posting teenagers rather than state entities.
The US has a score of 80, while Canada has 92. Populism factors include anti-immigration, xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and anti-communism. The speaker argues that anti-corruption sentiments are viewed negatively. They criticize the methodology, claiming it aims to influence laws and monitor populist trends to identify targets for regime change. Freedom House, a CIA adjunct, dinged the US freedom score for attacks on the disinformation governance board.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They have a map of populism. This is just a fucking CIA drone strike list. Anti globalization, anti establishment, anti corruption. If people weren't mad about corruption, we'd be a better democracy in the eyes of the CIA than NATO. I bet you this thing's NATO funded.
Machismo. Their dicks work. Ding their democracy score. Anticommunism? Anti do you guys see this?
Anticommunism is listed as a populism factor dinging The United States' score. Being against communism lowers your democracy score. I mean, you could literally go to this map, and everything with a score below 50, there is an active CIA regime change operation ongoing. Do you see why they use this framework? Because by using this catchall word populism, it doesn't fucking matter what you believe.
All that matters is have you opened your butthole to them. Spiral sent me this. I have actually this in the syllabus, this European center of popular populism studies. This is a thing funded by USAID. Wow.
The top one at the European Center for Populism Studies. Election results were rejection of Trumpist style populism in Australia. Now understand, Australia is, like, the second largest exporter of LNG. Okay? So they want everyone kicked off of Russian gas, the gas pipelines from Russia, and to buy Australian LNG.
US partnered, Shell partnered, ExxonMobil, Chevron partnered LNG. They want maximum war on Russia. They want to make sure Australia does not become peaceful. Want to keep Australia on a maximum cold war footing to protect their fucking markets. From fraud to framing, Marine Le Pen's trial.
The Erdogan regime and its future amid mass protests, prospects for change? Can is is our color revolution attempt in Turkey potentially successful? Digital authoritarianism. I love it. They're literally going after, like, 16 year olds living in their parents' house, posting edgy, like, Orban memes and calling them the digital authoritarians, not the ones who control the fucking CIA, FBI, German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the federal fucking police.
No. They're not the digital authoritarians. The authoritarians are like teenagers posting memes. Populism in EP elections. Case Finland, Populism gone mad.
Populism. Populism. Populism map. They have a they have a map of populism. This is just a fucking CIA drone strike list.
View larger map. Let's take a look at this. The US, Eighty out of a hundred. What was this last updated, I wonder? Canada has a 92% score.
Sociopolitical situation, stable. Main populism factors, left wing populism, right wing populism, nationalism. This shit, we gotta look at who funds this European Center for Populism Studies. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. This is a fucking hit list. Stable. I wonder when this is last updated. Let me see.
I'm gonna do a archive.org. Oh, this is gonna be a great resource. Spiral, dude. Secret weapon over here. Last updated 02/15/2025.
A lot has happened since then. Interesting. So The United States has a worse score than Canada on its autocracy rating. Main populism factors, anti immigration. The people can't have sovereignty over their own immigration policies.
Xenophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, afraid of Chinese people, xenophobia, racism, anticommunism, anti do you guys see this? Anticommunism is listed as a populism as a pop as a populism factor dinging The United States' score. Being against communism lowers your democracy score. Anti globalization, anti establishment, anti corruption. Oh, I see.
This is they're like, this is what people are feeling, and that's what's giving rise to it. Anti corruption is giving rise to populist factors. They're fucking pro corruption. Do you guys see this? I can't scroll down on it because it'll it'll move the thing.
It won't let me okay. Is this clear? Can you guys see how do I okay. Do you guys see this? It says anti corruption.
If people weren't mad about corruption, we'd be a better democracy in the eyes of the CIA. And NATO, I bet you this thing's NATO funded, was was previously USAID funded, to be funded by the European the European Endowment for Democracy, possibly also NED or one of the NED branches. It's to be funded by these, like it might get, like, NATO social cohesion funds. It's gonna have EU grants, definitely. Anti elitism, conspiracy theories, Judeo Christian civilizationalism, machismo.
Their dicks work. Dingler democracy score. Climate change denial. And then also, like, a vague anti establishment Bernie Sanders, anti neoliberal, Democrat socialism. Let's see.
Brazil, the situation is is fragile. We're stable in The US, but it's fragile in Brazil. Right Wing Populism, climate change denial, anti corruption, flawed democracy, illiberal democracy. Let's see. Let's go to let's go to Venezuela.
Twenty Eight, Left Wing Populism. You see how everything you want a regime change as populist? Whether it's left wing populist or right wing populist? Venezuela's left wing populist, anti establishment, revolutionary socialism, anti capitalism. Do you see why they use this framework?
Because by using this catchall word populism, it doesn't fucking matter what you believe. All that matters is have you opened your butthole to them? Are you nationalists in any way whatsoever so that they don't get their cut of your money? Let's see. Let's check out some of the others.
Russia is at 33. Ultranationalism. Anti feminism. Europhobia. Oh, yeah.
They're they're afraid of Europe. Finland's in 92. Let's see. Ireland said 90. With all the problems Ireland's having, they're at 90.
They're higher than The United States. France is an 80 tied with The US. The problem is Marine Le Pen. I mean, you could literally go to this map and everything with a score below 50, there is an active CIA regime change operation ongoing. Methodology.
This is gonna be funny. Scholarly research. Raise public awareness and provide practical recommendations to policymakers. So the whole thing is to influence laws. It ain't research.
It ain't studies. It's operations. It monitors populism trends around the world by observing and reporting on populist political parties, movements, actors. Populist politics are strongly linked with rolling back democratic norms and standards and institutions. They also feature a regime rating, a shorthand method for analyzing whether the CIA should regime change their government.
I'm sorry. The strength of their democratic institutions, the strength of our assets there. They haven't updated this thing since Trump took office. For January 2025, I bet you it's a lot less than 80 now. Yeah.
For civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom of the press. Yeah. They just love free expression. Again, this just means is regime media dominating? They'll give a flying figure.
Let's go back to the map. What do they what score do they give for Germany? Eighty Seven. Germany is a higher score than The United States. Even though in Germany, you literally get your house raided for questioning whether there should be immigration.
Speaker 1: It's six zero one on a Tuesday morning, and we were with state police as they raided this apartment in Northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched the suspect's home, then seized his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime, posting a racist cartoon online. At the exact same time across Germany than 50 similar raids played out, part of what prosecutors say is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.
Speaker 0: The federal police come in and raid your house, thousands and thousands of people. You get arrested in Germany if you are in a group chat where someone else posts a meme the government doesn't like. And their score is based on how much freedom of expression there is. Again, that just means, like, can they get pussy riot in there? Can they get their version of the media to dominate?
Yeah. Erodes trust in experts, institutions. Yeah. I mean, we've we've been over this. They all say the same thing.
Right? It erodes our control. It erodes our deep state as we started the stream earlier with. We need the deep state to save us. That's all that is.
And they calculate these points based on Freedom House. Of course, Freedom House is the fucking CIA adjunct that after Trump won 2016 started dinging countries' freedom score unless they had censorship laws and regulations in place. Freedom House actually dinged the US Freedom House score in 2024, citing the attacks on the disinformation governance board. Think about that. Freedom House, funded by the US state department, was run by Michael Chertoff, became the chairman of BAE Systems, the largest military contractor in NATO, and who gave birth to the idea of the disinformation governance board.
They dung the the the country score for The United States on the freedom index because they got rid of the Internet censorship at the government level. It's also naked.
reSee.it AI Summary
Mike Benz praised Harmeet Dhillon's work as head of the DOJ Civil Rights division. In response, another user highlighted a DOJ probe revealing Hennepin County's race-based plea deals as illegal discrimination, arguing that replacing old biases with new ones undermines public trust and justice.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Huge and superimportant work being done here by @HarmeetKDhillon in her role as head of DOJ Civil Rights division 🔥🔥🔥
@TheJusticeDept - U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice Announces Civil Rights Investigation into the Consideration of Race in Prosecutorial Decision making by Minnesota’s Hennepin County 🔗: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-announces-civil-rights-investigation-consideration-race-prosecutorial
U.S. Department of Justice Announces Civil Rights Investigation into the Consideration of Race in Prosecutorial Decision making by Minnesota’s Hennepin County
Under our Constitution, no government may distribute different burdens or benefits on the basis of race without facing strict judicial scrutiny. This is especially true in the criminal justice system. Any attempt to subject Americans to different punishments or penalties based on race violates the Constitution and a number of federal civil rights laws.
justice.gov
@dogeai_gov - DOGEai
@MikeBenzCyber @HarmeetKDhillon DOJ probe exposes Hennepin County's race-based plea deals for what they are: Illegal discrimination masquerading as equity. Equal justice under law. No exceptions. Swapping old bias for new bias destroys public trust.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Interesting thread unpacking evil disguised as good
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
🧵THREAD: GEORGE SOROS, THE MASTERMIND Today's systems of NGOs isn't accidental - it was laid out in a vision 30 years ago by none other than George Soros. I joined @MikeBenzCyber on a livestream last night, where he was kind enough to walk us through the basics. As my bio says, I am just a tool builder. I am not a historian or academic. The information in this thread is common knowledge for many. It wasn't for me. I want to walk you through an essay which Mike pointed me to- a chilling essay written in 1993 by George Soros, "Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO"
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
@elonmusk Video overview of this George Soros Future Of NATO essay here: https://t.co/zjKYuHKrlP
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Here’s a video I did going over this George Soros Future Of NATO (1993) essay / book and the key contents and passages in it https://t.co/EJaj6n2GUx
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1993, George Soros stated that the UN had failed, leaving NATO as the only collective security institution not yet tried, with the potential to serve as the basis for a new world order. He argued NATO's original mission was obsolete and a security vacuum existed. Soros said NATO's mission should be redefined to project power and influence, combating nationalism by engaging in organized political warfare to build democratic states and open societies.
Economic assistance should be tied to internal political developments, requiring NATO to get involved in the internal politics of every country. Soros proposed a "Partnership for Peace" with its own structure and budget drawn from NATO, emphasizing political and economic aspects. He suggested Japan should join NATO and that combining Eastern European manpower with NATO capabilities would enhance military potential while reducing risks for NATO countries. Soros advocated for marrying rule-of-law programs to economic aid to incentivize a legal framework for private sector participation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: George Soros, the future of NATO. As it is, the UN has the United Nations has already failed as an institution which can be put in charge of US troops. This leaves NATO as the only institution of collective security that has not failed because it has not been tried. NATO has the potential of serving as the basis of a new world order. NATO as the basis of the new world order in 1993.
Remember, this is two years before NATO would launch its first fire its first bullet in 1995 against Yugoslavia. And notice how Soros is complaining. The very first thing he complains about is Yugoslavia. Two Years later, NATO, the basis of the new world order, would fire its first bullet, formed in 1949, wouldn't fire a single bullet till 1995. Soros is calling for it right before it does it.
But NATO can only serve as the basis of a new world order if its mission is redefined. There's an urgent need for profound new thinking with regard to NATO, the future of NATO. The original mission was to defend the free world against the Soviet empire. That mission is obsolete. But the collapse of the Soviet empire has left a security vacuum, which has the potential of turning into a black hole.
This presents a different kind of threat than the Soviet empire did. There's no direct threat from the region to NATO countries. The danger is within the region. He's saying NATO used to face outside of Europe, but now NATO has to be used on Europe, which they would do in Yugoslavia. Same thing with the NGOs, the State Department USAID funded NGOs.
They were supposed to do strategic influence against authoritarian on the outside. But when Trump won, there was an urgent need for profound new thinking with the role of the NGOs, the State Department, the Pentagon, the IC, the democracy NGOs. The danger was not from without, it was within. Isn't that nasty? Therefore, if NATO has any mission at all, if NATO has any mission at all, it is to project its power and influence into the region, And the mission is best defined in terms of open and closed societies, democracy and autocracy, closed societies based on the nationalist principles.
So nationalism is the enemy. NATO has to be used to stop nationalism. He's calling for NATO to be used on NATO countries, which of course it is. It was during the nineteen forties. This is Operation Gladio and all that political engineering.
The threat is very different in character from the one NATO was constructed to confront. NATO has to get involved in organized political warfare, which it was doing for the forty years before that. But Sidebar. Involves the building of democratic states and open societies, embedding them in a structure which precludes certain kinds of behavior, like voting for Georgia's Q in Romania. Only in the case of failure does the prospect of military intervention arise.
Unfortunately, the American proposal for the forthcoming NATO summit not deal with this issue at all. It's a very narrow technical proposal. The scope of possible future cooperation is described as peacekeeping, crisis management, search and rescue missions, and disaster relief. The primary need is for constructive engagement in the transition to democratic market oriented open societies. This is where you get the George Soros Milton Friedman alliance.
Who's best poised to take advantage of the market oriented open societies? It's the big multinational corporations and it's the private equity firms and hedge funds that are all gonna be buying up those markets. Pizza Hut nationalism, This requires an association or alliance which goes far beyond military matters. And contains a significant element of economic assistance. Both the military and economic aspects have to relate to internal political developments within states as much as relationships between states because we need to do this transition to prying open their markets.
So he's saying NATO has to get involved in the internal politics of every country. Exactly what we see today. Not just states between states, but for example, in Romania. NATO has to get involved in the internal political developments within within Romania. Yeah.
Whole society, exactly. The mission of this new kind of alliance is so radically different from the original mission of NATO that it cannot be entrusted to NATO itself. This is like organized political warfare. George Kennan saying, listen, this is a State Department thing, but the State Department shouldn't be running it itself. If it were, it would change NATO out of all recognition.
A different kind of organization is needed. The postpartnership of peace could be that organization. It must lay the emphasis on the political and economic aspects. The partnership for peace must have a structure and a budget. That is what NATO could bring to the table.
NATO was a unified command structure which brings together The US and Western Europe. Their great advantage is in having a strong Western pillar. It leads to a lopsided structure firmly rooted in the West. This is as it should be since the goal is to reinforce and gratify the desire of a region for joining the open society of the West. It would be an express condition of any membership in the partnership with peace that NATO is free to invite any other country to join NATO.
The budget of the Partnership for Peace must come out of the NATO budget. There may be some elements in the military industrial complex that may object object to such a reallocation of resources. George Soros, in 1993, complaining about the military industrial complex because Raytheon and Boeing and Lockheed Martin may object to the money buying politicians rather than their their missiles and tanks. They have a strong argument in their favor. If nothing is done on the economic and political front, defense budgets will have to be raised.
The Yugoslav experience, this is two years before we fired bullets at Yugoslavia. Economic aid. The economic aid costs money and the money can be found only in defense budgets and USAID. It leaves Japan out of the account. Japan should be asked to join NATO.
This is what Soros was saying in 1993. Japan should join the North Atlantic Tree Organization. Is Japan the single farthest point on the globe from the Atlantic Ocean? It might be. Is there any country farther from the Atlantic Ocean than Japan?
I'm telling you, NATO is going to expand to the moon. If Elon does get us to Mars, there will be NATO bases, North Atlantic Ocean bases on the surface of Mars. The architecture for a new world order, the most important one is NATO. Soros considers NATO the most important structure in the new world order. The combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities from NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries because then the body bags are coming from Eastern Europe and, like, Romania and Ukraine.
Ouch. That hurts. This is the, that meme that Elon posted of the old men playing chess while the young men die on the chessboard. NATO offers a better culture than the European Commission, which has been in charge of coordinating economic assistance. Marshall Plan.
Countries like Hungary have almost completely broken their dependence on the Soviet market. They need better access to European markets more than any form of economic assistance. This is the basis of the EU. And look at his obsession, George Soros, even in the nineteen nineties, of marrying rule of law programs to economic aid. The same thing USA does.
Rule of law programs to control laws in foreign countries. To create a state of law, a legal framework, there can be no economic development. The knowhow should be supplied by the private sector. The role of foreign aid is to provide an inducement. The role George Soros, the role in 1993, the role of foreign aid is to provide an inducement for the development of a legal framework and for the private sector to participate.
It's basically his portfolio companies. I think this is an
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
🧵THREAD: GEORGE SOROS, THE MASTERMIND Today's systems of NGOs isn't accidental - it was laid out in a vision 30 years ago by none other than George Soros. I joined @MikeBenzCyber on a livestream last night, where he was kind enough to walk us through the basics. As my bio
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
It would seem to me, with a Republican White House, and a Republican House and Senate, the #1 priority of the GOP ahead of the midterms would be to repeal illegals counting in the census. Who in Congress is advancing this? Why is the White House not making a crusade out of it?
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Let’s use common sense, if Democrats have 10 seats in Congress because of illegals then Why doesn’t the Republican MAJORITY Congress pass a law saying only American Citizens can be counted in the Census The Democrats Party would be finished. Why isn’t the GOP doing this today?? https://t.co/qolpgA05A6
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m questioning why USAID, known for humanitarian work, was supporting the for-profit gas company Burisma in Ukraine. Credit to @lawyer4laws for bringing this to my attention and highlighting the key details, especially regarding Burisma's ties to Hunter Biden in 2016.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Credit @lawyer4laws for first putting this on my radar & highlighting key receipts https://t.co/DfABWBF7My
@lawyer4laws - Lawyerforlaws
Why was Burisma Getting USAID in 2016 when Hunter Biden was on the Board?🤔 https://t.co/6MouZrQWoq
reSee.it AI Summary
I attended a fascinating 40-minute lecture titled "The History of the Intelligence State," which delved into the origins of The Blob. I appreciated the event hosted by Hillsdale. The lecture covered various topics, including organized political warfare, the Plausible Deniability Doctrine, and the CIA's role in media and diplomacy. I noted timestamps for key sections but only managed to get through the first third of the lecture. There’s so much more to explore, especially regarding structural and operational changes post-1983 and post-2016.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
"The History of the Intelligence State" -- an essential 40 min lecture on the origin story of The Blob. Thanks to @Hillsdale for a beautiful event. Timestamps in tweet below https://t.co/GTRrgPpLqt
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1948, George Kennan authored "Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare," advocating for overt and covert actions, including psychological warfare, to further US national objectives. This followed the CIA's first election rigging in Italy, where $250,000,000 was spent to influence the outcome, utilizing media, churches, charities, and even the mafia. Kennan's memo argued for a permanent capacity for such interventions globally, despite potential public disapproval.
NSC ten-two, also sponsored by Kennan, sanctioned illegal covert operations with plausible deniability, transforming the CIA from a spy agency into one that could lie. This required lying to both foreign countries and US citizens. The Smith-Mundt Act, intended to prevent domestic propaganda, was later repealed, allowing the US government to disseminate "government-made news" to Americans.
Initially, the US had only three government agencies: State, War (later Defense), and Treasury. The Monroe Doctrine and subsequent "Banana Wars" expanded US influence. Woodrow Wilson's promotion of democracy facilitated interventions globally. Post-1948, the CIA orchestrated coups in 85 countries. Scandals led to the Church Committee hearings and initial congressional oversight, but Reagan later restructured the intelligence state, diffusing it into society via captured institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy. The intelligence state serves the State Department and Pentagon, with the CIA doing the "dirty work."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you Hillsdale for having me and the incredible work that you're doing. Today's topic is the history of the intelligence state. And what I'm going to try to describe to you is the shape of the beast that we are up against and has targeted so many people in this room. Hillsdale asked me to speak about this particular topic, the history of the intelligence state. Obviously, the intelligence state is a concept that implies that intelligence has taken over the state and that it has somehow gone rogue, something has gone very wrong that intelligence which is supposed to serve the state has subsumed it.
I will present the essential history of the intelligence state, but there is something beyond it that I think beginning with that helps elucidate. And that may be the octopus that was just referred to, but we'll we'll come to meet it towards as as we progress. So I think the best way to understand is to actually start the story in the middle. And then we will go back in time to the founding of the country. We'll sort of speed run the essential history, and then all the way up into the present.
But we're going to start in the year 1948. This is the sort of zero AD of the founding of the intelligence capacities of the US government. And instead of sort of doing the what you'll learn in an ordinary history book, we're going to start with a document that I'm curious if anyone has ever seen. It's called the inauguration of organized political warfare. Anyone ever seen that document in this room?
How many people in this room know the name George Kennan? Okay. 75% of the hands went up. Did you know that George Kennan in 1948 wrote this memo called the Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare, in which he's famous for folks who are not familiar, Kennan is known as a godfather figure of American diplomacy and the Central Intelligence Agency. He was famous for this long telegram, the chief strategist of the containment strategy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
But before all that, when all of this was getting started, he he penned this top secret memo, which was not declassified for sixty years, was declassified in 02/2005, that I think helps elucidate the story as we're going to proceed here. We're gonna go through this memo, but I want to give some context first. The inauguration of organized political warfare was written just twelve days after the Central Intelligence Agency did its first government overthrow operation, its first election rigging event. That was on 04/18/1948, and this was written just twelve days after that. And the particular focus was what had just happened in Italy.
Italy was having its first democratic election after World War II, and it posited a US backed candidate on the one hand and a Russia backed candidate on the other. And when the rules based international order was being established in 1948, and we had these coordinating bodies through the National Security Council, the very first memo I have just on screen here emphasizes how important it is for The US to control the political affairs of Italy. You'll see National Security Council memo one dash one is titled The Positioning of The United States with Respect to Italy. Kennan wrote, Italy is obviously the key point. If the communists win there, our whole position would probably be undermined.
Now, what happened in this case was in 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency was established under the National Security Act. And it was originally intended to have intelligence focus on gathering and analysis. But because of the key importance perceived by the US State Department to influence the course of the Italian election, it developed a makeshift ad hoc thrown together at the last minute, $250,000,000 operation to swing that election in favor of the candidate that the US government preferred. And I just have some statistics here and a little bit of context because we're going to see this as a repeating theme. So about $250,000,000 were spent of US taxpayer money in order to prop up our preferred candidate.
The CIA made use of funding to finance it. We had bags of money that were delivered to selected politicians to pay for their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets. We threatened the Italian government that aid money from The US would be withheld if the wrong person got elected. Our newly created CIA proprietary media organizations, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, set up a vast spawn of Italian network news in order to create a surround sound inside that country to buy US propaganda and messaging. We funneled aid money through churches and charity fronts to mafia and Union Street Muscle.
We worked with Hollywood to project Greta Garbo films and others into the country. And the reason I'm starting with this context is not just because it will it will help explain the the rationale for the beast that was created just six weeks after this memo was penned, also by George Kennan. But it's because understand that this is the intelligence services co opting all of these organizations. Which is to say that when the US government provides funding or assistance, suddenly the churches that they were working with are no longer simply churches. They are instruments of statecraft.
The nonprofit charities are no longer simply charities. They become instruments of statecraft. The media is no longer an independent media. It is an instrument of statecraft. Hollywood becomes an instrument of statecraft.
Organized criminal mafias, and just so you understand the context of this, the predecessor to the CIA, the OSS, together with our war department, as as it was called at the time, was working with criminal groups in Italy, as well as with church organizations and others who were being prosecuted by Mussolini, and they served as a sort of guerrilla resistance to assist the US Army and intelligence operations. And so we had that network established. It was unseemly but seen as necessary in a time of war, but it was simply maintained in times of peace for political war. But then suddenly, organized crime becomes not a criminal offense, but rather a sanctioned instrument of statecraft. And just to drive that point home, this is Miles Copeland, one of the founding members of the CIA, in his own book, wrote that had it not been for the mafia, the communists would by now be in control of Italy.
Why was all this necessary? Well, was necessary because in the eyes of the US State Department, we would have lost the election if the intelligence community hadn't rigged it. 60% of the vote would have gone to the communists but for CIA intervention in their assessment. And I'm going to just urge throughout this that when you hear communist or fascist in terms of the historical data points we're going to go over, understand that in the post 2016 world, all of this infrastructure has been repurposed to take out populism. So every time you see communism, as much as all of us abhor that, I think with every fiber in our souls, The biggest threat right now to the intelligence state and to the blob will come to me towards the end of this is domestic populism.
And this is actually the language that they use. So when see that say the communist would have won, many of us would prefer that obviously that the communist does not win. But today, they use that exact same language, as you'll see, to describe stopping the rise of populism and stopping populist political candidates. So I want to just go through this since I didn't see a hand raised in this room. This key document that was the predecessor to the government linchpin license that created this whole universe.
So we're just going to go through some of these receipts I've flagged on screen here. This is from George Kennan, April thirty, nineteen forty eight, just the week before the Central Intelligence Agency had achieved this incredible win in Italy. And George Kennan and the State Department and the White House were so overwhelmed with the light about the world of possibility if we could simply scale the Italian operation. But the problem was is it was very much against everything this country had stood for for a century and a half before that. So I'm just gonna read some of the highlighted items here.
So you'll see the the phrase political warfare dots this in a very deliberate way. Organized political warfare by the US government to further our national objectives, further our influence and authority using means both overt and covert, including black psychological warfare and many other techniques. George Kennan says here, we have been handicapped, however, by a popular attachment to the concept of a basic difference between peace and war. And that are public. You'll see he actually crossed out of the draft, because again this is a top secret memo that was published in 1948 and wasn't declassified until 02/2005.
The hard record preserves his own scrawls. You'll see at the bottom it says, we're hamstrung by this basic difference between peace and war, but by our public's yearnings, and then that's crossed out, and it says, national tendency to seek a political cure all and a reluctance to recognize the realities of international relations. Basically saying, listen, we answer to the voters, the people, and they're not going to like this. They don't understand international relations. They think there's a difference between peace and war.
And World War II is over. It just ended three years ago. But if we go into peacetime mode and we do not continue political warfare, then we will lose the opportunity to dominate the twentieth century. And you'll see here it references this was the Italian elections, that we just engaged in this in the Italian elections twelve days from then. And that this political warfare has to be directed and coordinated by the Department of State.
And we're going to come back to that because when you see the shape of the intelligence state, it extends far beyond intelligence and actually it's really a tool of statecraft. So here is a very interesting telling vision into this CIA godfather. It says we cannot afford in the future, in perhaps more serious political crises, to scramble into impromptu covert operations as we did at the time of the Italian elections, saying we did this. It was great. It was amazing.
But we need this capacity everywhere. We need it on every country on Earth where there might be a political crisis, every country on earth where there might be a need for us to protect US national interests or trade interests or financial interests or security interests. We need the same network we had in Italy, working with everyone from the cultural influencers to the media to the churches to the charities to the organized crime networks, even if we don't use it, just in case we need it, so we don't need to scramble if an opposition politician decides to go sideways against a US national interest agenda. So I'm setting the stage with that before we go back in time and then sort of go through the whole history of this. Because just less than two months after George Kennan wrote that inauguration of organized political warfare, saying, since 1789, we have never done this sort of thing in any organized fashion.
The American people aren't going to like it, but we have to do it. Just less than two months after that, George Kennan then sponsored the very act which would permanently change the structure of the American government and the way our country works. And this was the National Security Council memo ten-two. Now for folks who are not familiar, the National Security Council is called the interagency. It coordinates what the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, what everyone is doing so that they are all working in a complementary fashion.
It's in the White House and it's sort of the executive oversight of everything. So you'll see this memo here, NSC ten-two. And just so that you see it, it's right here on the State Department website under state.gov, what I'm about to read here. It sanctioned US intelligence to carry out a broad range of covert operations, including propaganda, economic warfare, demolition, subversion, sabotage. It sponsored by George Kennan.
He was the one who pushed for this right after he wrote the inauguration of organized political warfare. But he would later say it was the greatest mistake he ever made because of the monster it created. Because what NSC 10 dash two did was it gave the intelligence community, this burgeoning newly created CIA and the we now have 17 intelligence agencies plus the ODNI, they transform not just from spy organizations, but to lie organizations. And what I mean by that is because of this phrase that is used in NSC ten-two. I'm going to read it.
All of these activities, which are normally illegal, can be carried out so long as they are planned and executed so that any US government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered, the US government can plausibly deny any responsibility for them. I'm going to actually just show you the exact language here. This is again 1948. All covert operations, all of these sabotage demolition, controlling the media, they are now legal as long as they are planned and executed so that any US government responsibility is not evident to unauthorized persons. So you are cast out of Eden effectively if you eat the apple of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
You are not allowed to know. And they are not allowed to tell you their job is to lie to you. And that if they do get caught, the US government can then lie above the agency level, above the CIA. The State Department gets to lie to the world because the CIA had these covert links, and they can say it was not an official sanctioned US government operation. Something went rogue.
Someone wasn't authorized. Someone took it into their own hands. And I'm just going to read this analysis that I think is a useful summary. That plausible deniability encouraged the autonomy of this newly created CIA, which was created a year earlier, and other covert action agencies in order to protect the visible authorities of the government. And we're going to come back to that as we discuss the power structure of all these different organizations.
But I want to drive this point home immediately, which is that this was seen as a major growth opportunity because of how effective it was in the 1940s and the 1950s to be able to take over the world through diplomacy, through duplicity. But the problem with diplomacy through duplicity, plausible deniability is the core doctrine that governs the interagency which controls all of our major US government operations on national security, foreign policy, and international interests. Because you lie to the outside world, you need to also lie to your own citizens to keep the outside from finding out. So while the lies may help you successfully acquire an empire, you now have to permanently maintain an empire of lies, not just abroad but at home. Now in 1948, when the founding fathers of the intelligence state were setting this all up, they were intensely aware of the monster they were making.
In 1948, Congress passed the Smith Munt Act, because again in 1948 is when all of this was getting established. The CIA was brand new. NSC ten-two had just come out. And Congress said, Okay, Okay, listen, you guys are creating a monster here. We want to make sure that we don't build this empire of lies and that Americans are not being inundated with this sprawl of information control that you are conducting around the world in order to conduct organized political warfare on all countries on planet Earth.
And I think many folks in this room are probably familiar with what happened during the Obama administration, which was this essential safeguard, which had been with us since the moment this all was created in 1948, was repealed with quite little fanfare. It was tucked into an NDAA. It was really, I think, only discovered by the public after the damage had been done that the Smithmont was modernized to get rid of that restriction. It was effectively amended. And so the headline here is US repeals propaganda ban spreads government made news to Americans.
For decades, this anti propaganda law prevented the US government's mammoth broadcasting arm, I should say arms, from delivering programming to American audiences. And mammoth is not a big enough word. After World War II, the world actually at this exact time in 1948, the UN Declaration for Human Rights came out and forbade the territorial acquisition of other countries by military force. It became against these new international norms and standards, international law. You could not simply have a military occupation of The Philippines like The United States had in the early 1900s.
And so with hard power ruled out as the dominant means to have an empire, The US transitioned to a soft power empire, which would be dominated by agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, democracy promotion programs at the State Department, later USAID, and the whole swarm army we're about to meet. But even right out the gate, the Central Intelligence Agency immediately moved into the media space to control the messaging that people around the world experienced. And so I have on screen Voice of America, Radio for Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio for Asia, dozens of others. They were CI proprietary media. This is Frank Wissner.
Frank Wissner was the spearhead of this early CIA media control apparatus. The name comes from the Wurlitzer piano like organ, because Wissner would brag that he could play the international news as if it was a Wurlitzer. He could have any narrative carried in any country on Earth because of the vast sprawl of media control that this newly formed intelligence agency, which was leveraging essentially the Office of War Information's Pentagon media network created during World War II, to thousands of partnered media outlets on all six populated continents. At that time, one third of CI's budget went just to funding media organizations. And today that number is paralleled by the web of CI cutouts that we'll meet when we get to 1983 and beyond and how this initial structure changed after the scandals of the 1970s.
This was popularly called the Department of Dirty Tricks, this NSE ten-two plausible deniability power to essentially play God around the world. This was their term, Department of Dirty Tricks. And just because it's somewhat funny, you'll see this is Max Boot, just a few years ago, calling for us to make a more robust Department of Dirty Tricks. Why The United States needs to sabotage, undermine, and expose its enemies. And you'll see that this is a CIA story.
CIA is underlined there on the second one. But notice that it goes way beyond that, the dirty tricks. It's the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency director, and the administrator of USAID, the US Agency for International Development, to create political warfare career tracks and attract people who find political warfare rewarding and attractive. So one essential way to cut through how this is structured is to understand that there's a key distinction between the American homeland and the American empire. We live in the American homeland.
But the American empire is everywhere else. And today, even all of the major US domiciled corporations get the lion's share of their markets, their revenues, their supply chain resources from everywhere else on earth. We are actually, even though we are a big country, we pale in comparison to the globe. And the issue is when people on the homeland want to put their own interests first, they run up against the empire managers and therefore against the blob apparass we're going to see, therefore against the intelligence state. And what I have here is in this inauguration of organized political warfare, you see that even though the emphasis is on giving the CIA this capacity, the entire thing is coordinated by the US State Department, which does not have a plausible deniability license.
It's supposed to be our official US government policy. But secretly, the CIA answers to the State Department in all things, and we're going to dive into the structure on that. You'll see there at the bottom, this whole operation has to be answerable to the Secretary of State who directs the hole in coordination. While covert political warfare must be controlled by the State Department, the direction should not physically be in the State Department. This is more true when it's realized that the considerable funds necessary for such an operation could not be concealed in the department's budget.
So they have to hide what they're doing from the American people and from foreign countries who, if there was transparency about how our own taxpayer dollars were being spent, they would know their countries are being targeted for overthrow. So the State Department can't conceal it. So we need this web of other government agencies, including the intelligence services, to park the money there. So again, the coordination of covert operations with overt conduct should be accomplished through the office of the Secretary of State and Undersecretary. And our proposal is that this tradition be revised to further American national interests.
So that is the linchpin of this, which is this concept of US national interest. So now let's go back in time to look at the origin of this. So this is the first meeting of Congress in 1789. When the first meeting of Congress happened, we established only three government agencies. Imagine a world without HUD.
Imagine a world without the Department of Education or Labor. At the founding moment of our first meeting of Congress, we established only three government agencies. The Department of State to manage the affairs of state, to manage our relations in the international community. The Department of Defense, and I'm going to asterisk that for a second, and the Department of Treasury. So basically, money, war, and everything else that involves America's posture to wider world.
Now I put an asterisk next to Department of Defense because it was not actually called the Department of Defense at the time. It was called the Department of War. And it kept that name for one hundred and fifty years until 1948, exactly when the CIA was created, exactly when the Smithmont Act came out, exactly when the UN Declaration on Human Rights forbade the military from taking over the world. And so we simply did something cute and we said, okay, we are no longer the War Department. We are forward defending ourselves.
We're about defense actually, but we're just going to do the same things we were doing before, but we're not allowed to say war anymore because that's outlawed. Just if you want to see receipts on that. Okay. So let's just speed run what happened between 1789 and 1948 to establish the American Empire. So we started off as just this mainland, the homeland that we're in.
And today, our reach is in every country and on every continent. There is a State Department regional desk. There's an Assistant Secretary whose job is to make sure the right politician wins in every single country on Earth. So the Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasian Affairs is going to have a portfolio of 15 different European countries. Every one of those countries has elections.
Every one of those elections has a state department preference. They will back channel with all parties. One will be better for US national interest, the other won't. And that assistant secretary's job is to influence the course of political events in that country to conduct organized political warfare using plausible deniability in order to achieve that outcome. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't, but that is their job.
But how do we get this empire? So in 1823, we declared the Monroe Doctrine. Before that, the fledgling US Navy was flying out to Tripoli, and there was a lot of competition with the Spanish and other colonial powers in the Western Hemisphere. We told Europe, you stay out of the Western Hemisphere, we'll stay out of Europe. And we began to take over the political ecosystems and the agriculture, the sugar, the natural resources of almost the entirety of Latin America and South America.
These were the famous, in the next image here, the famous Banana Wars, the Pineapple Wars, the Guava Wars. It's a funny moment in American history in the late 1800s when we were establishing what are now known as Banana Republics. These were US private corporations, for profit corporations, having financial interests in a region outside of our country where the US War Department and State Department would descend on the territory, basically help overthrow that government, provide support, and private corporation would essentially government. And it would run-in a very dysfunctional way. But it was protected.
The big business and big government were in league with each other, in the sense that the big government had the US military, had US Diplomats, had US power projection into the regions, and the big corporations would profit from being able to exploit the resources, the labor, and that is part of the reason that we had cheap food, and the same relationship is in big oil. It's the reason we had cheap gas. It's the reason we'll come to this, but we may need this apparatus. But the fact is it was established very early in the American story well before, seven decades before, the actual creation of the intelligence state. The intelligence state just grafted onto that relationship between the War Department, the State Department, and private sector stakeholders.
So the next image here I have is Remember the Maine. This was in 1898. We became an international empire when we won the Spanish American War and not only took Cuba, but we took The Philippines as well, and then suddenly had to control wide ranging plot of geography on planet Earth. The next image here is just the FBI. The FBI was created in 1908.
The Justice Department had been around for about sixty years before that. But the FBI was created in the romp to World War I, and its first serious operation was rounding up anti war protesters to World War I and working to undermine their ability to use the US Postal Service and other means to get their messages out. The FBI is one of our 17 intelligence agencies. So again, this preceded 1948. This preceded the CIA.
We have 17 intelligence agencies. Only two of them face domestically. The other one besides the FBI that's domestic is DHS, which of course was after nineeleven. And then the final image here I have of a sort of essential history in the speedrun is simply Woodrow Wilson, because he is the sort of spiritual godfather of the doctrine that organized political warfare would be grafted under, because his mission to make the world safe for democracy allowed us to pull a very cute trick when the world transitioned from hard power to soft power as the primary means to run an empire, which was that you no longer had to have a national security threat to use the national security state. You could simply promote democracy.
And under the banner of promoting democracy, you could do the dirtiest of deeds. You could do demolition, sabotage, black propaganda. You could work with the criminal underworld, again as I mentioned in Italy and Iran and dozens of countries. You could rig elections. You could stuff ballot boxes.
But it's all to promote democracy, even if there is no threat to the American people, and even if it only benefits a small coterie of financial and corporate stakeholders working with the US State Department. What happened after 1948? There's an image here on the left, which is just a list of CIA regime change operations after Italy. Don't need to blow it up on screen or anything. But essentially, there were 85 countries that the CIA orchestrated coups in on the back of this Italy operation that George Kennan and the rest of the State Department officials were so inspired by.
They did, in fact, achieve the goal that they set out to, which was to broaden this to virtually every country, continent, and region on Earth, and to capacity build these networks whether we needed them or not. 50 of those, by the way, happened just during the Eisenhower administration between nineteen fifty two nineteen sixty, just right out the gate in the 1950s. And by the early 1960s, this began to come home and caused the first real what led to the chain of events that caused the first real structural change to the way the intelligence state works. And this was the intelligence state was doing to the new left at the time what they are currently doing to the populist right. There was this new faction within the Democrat Party that was not necessarily all limousine liberals.
A lot of them were anti war protesters or they, because of the Third World People's Movement's popularity at the time and a lot of the civil rights struggles and ethnic identity struggles that were happening at the time, many people in the Democrat Party were positioning themselves both socially, politically, and informationally aligned with countries that were being targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency. It seen as a right wing force because it was targeting socialist and communist governments, primarily actually just to sort of privatize the assets the state industries held. But the CIA began to do more and more the same things against the left then that they're doing against the populist right now. So just have a few images on screen. Huge CIA operation reported in US against anti war forces.
The CIA was actually bribing the National Association of Students. They launched something called Operation Chaos, basically designed at permanently shaping the composition of the Democrat Party to purge this new but very popular populist leftist faction out. And tell me if that sounds familiar. In terms of the intelligence state, it's not targeting George Bush or Mitt Romney or John McCain. It is only targeting one faction of the conservative wing of the GOP in order to purge that out.
The next image I have here on screen is COINTELPRO. This was on the FBI side, but it was done in tandem with the Central Intelligence Agency. COINTELPRO refers to counterintelligence, which is basically when the FBI is dealing with threats from foreign countries using this foreign predicate. I'll get to that a little bit more in a second here. Now the first thing that forced the restructuring of the intelligence state into its current form was a series of scandals that led up to and ultimately culminated in what was called the Church Committee hearing.
Also, there's a Pike Committee. You have on the left here is Frank Church. He was the Democrat senator who spearheaded those hearings. It was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency ever had congressional oversight. It had been around for thirty years, and members of Congress were not allowed to see what it was doing.
There was no oversight. There was no accountability. There was no hey, let me look at that. There was no gang of eight. It was only with the Church Committee that we created a House Intelligence Committee to have a select handful of members of the House be able to do oversight.
It was only then that we created the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the same on the Senate side. And this is Frank Church here on the left holding up the famous heart attack gun, which was in the CIA assassination guide and in research and development. They were assassinating world leaders. They were assassinating political dissidents all over the world. And they were working on ever more extreme ways to kill people and get away with it in order to adhere to their government license to plausible deniability.
And so the heart attack gun was the And you can look this up on YouTube. It's a fascinating congressional clip. This was done in an open hearing of Congress with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency testifying and explaining this heart attack gun, which was that it fire essentially a kind of dart so that the cause of death it would induce a heart attack so that the cause of death would look like it came from a heart attack rather than a murder. On the right here, this is Christopher Pyle. Christopher Pyle was one of the first people to get this ball rolling, not from CIA side, but from the US Army.
At that time, he was a whistleblower who had provided very damning evidence that, in his words, any public meeting that happens in The United States with 20 or more people, the US military wants to know what they're talking about and has active operations to survey and infiltrate any mass gathering of any political group, right, left, mother's knitting groups, religious groups. And he came forward with troves of documents around this that the US military perceived that it was necessary to maintain political control over the civilian class in order to prevent any popular bills from getting passed or people from getting elected who might undermine the military agenda. So a basic total usurpation of the concept that we have a democracy with a civilian run government. At that time, people who were thought leaders in this targeted section of the Democrat Party became to be aware because of these disclosures that basically everything in the world around them was not real. Their media, their culture, their music, all of these things were actually being used as instruments of statecraft, and in many cases against them directly.
So what I have here on the left is from the Senate Intelligence Committee, a memo from the Church Committee hearing, CIA's use of journalists and clergy in intelligence operations, so again working with religious groups. The center picture is something called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was a giant network of CIA funded and directed cultural and media institutions primarily in Europe, but would come to extend effectively all over the world, where the CIA basically co opted not just thought leaders in leading magazines, but also musicians, poets. They would even host musical events to attract people in dozens of countries, and then essentially use that as a way to get them aligned like a magnet with the US State Department agenda. And very famous senior folks were involved in this, including many in spaces that you might not expect. Gloria Steinem, for example, the famous feminist, was funded by the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
This is at the time when our State Department was beginning to project that as a means to win the Cold War by getting people in Central And Eastern Europe to become more feminist in order to oppose and angry them up against the patriarchal substructures of society in everywhere East Of Germany. Oh, no. Okay. Wait. Wait, we're just getting started.
Okay. Oh, shoot. Okay. Until nineteen we haven't got a day in '19 Okay. All right.
Well, look, on the left here is, again, all this involves lying to the American people. Even in the 1960s, this labyrinthian money laundering and hiding it from public accountability was already very robust. So basically what ends up happening, the church committee pops off. Jimmy Carter wins in 1976, coasting off of this popular resentment against the intelligence state that had existed at that time. He was fiercely opposed by the intelligence state, and he conducted what came to be called the Halloween Massacre, where he fired 30% of the CIA operations division in a single night.
It dramatically cut the agency's budget. And there was this brief moment when there was actually accountability and a peel back of these plausibly deniable octopus yarn of operations against the American people. But Ronald Reagan then came to power. And in 1983, he embarked on this structural change to the way the intelligence state works in order to get back the powers that the CIA had lost during the Jimmy Carter administration, including Kim signing into law the bill that established the National Endowment for Democracy, which is now today's premier CIA cutout. But basically what happened was is the CIA became less visible because of its previous scandals, and it diffused itself into a liaison role of a public facing network of publicly captured institutions.
And we simply moved the intelligent state into the whole of society, the instruments of statecraft that we had capacity built previously. So flash forward to 2016, and then I'll wrap. As our NGO sphere and university centers and media organizations and union groups and cultural groups all developed this favors for favors relationship, this mutual you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, I'll do what you want on this thing and I'll get a grant from the State Department or USAID or the National Science Foundation. What we are up against here is actually this network, this blob, this congealed shape where you have the intelligence state is actually serving the public facing functions of government. The CIA is simply a support agency for the State Department on National Interest grounds and the Pentagon on National Security grounds.
And so when you see the CIA do something or the intelligence state do something, understand that this is to serve a State Department official or a Pentagon official or stakeholders around that. It's really not a rogue agency in the sense that it answers to the State Department and it does the dirty work. Maybe I'll close with I guess I'll close with a Sopranos reference since my mother and father are here. And I think the best way to understand it is, if you're familiar, Tony Soprano is running this mafia outfit in New Jersey. And he's got these goons, these enforcers who do the plausibly deniable dirty work so that the FBI who's tracing Tony Soprano's calls can't say that Tony did it.
And so there's this character Furio, who is this sort of brawn. And he breaks into people's homes and beats them up and undermines their democracy, if you will. And it's very natural to look at that if you are in that home and it is your democracy being destroyed, it is your friends and family being arrested and say, the CIA did that. I'm sorry, Furio did that. But what's gone rogue is actually something much deeper than just the intelligence state.
It's actually the entrenched forces in diplomacy and in defense that the CI is tasked with to do this dirty work. So I guess I'll stop there for questions or if we have time for Q and A.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Timestamps: 1:19: The Inauguration of Organized Political Warfare 11:20: NSC 10/2 and the Plausible Deniability Doctrine 15:08: Diplomacy Thru Duplicity 16:04: Smith-Mundt Act, The CIA Media Empire 19:40: The Department of Dirty Tricks 20:36: The CIA As Servant Of The State Department 23:02: 1789-1948 pre-history 29:54: 1948-1983 37:31: I learn there’s 2 mins left on the clock & need to summarize the post-1983 structural changes and post-2016 operational changes in like 3 mins 😂 I only made it a third of the way thru the lecture! 😩
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Stunning. The FBI paid British intelligence agent Christopher Steele $75K to Russiagate Donald Trump, while Steele openly told the FBI Donald Trump was his “Main Opponent” because Trump’s foreign policy negatively impacted British interests https://t.co/AtR8YwUxJt
@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge
RUSSIAGATE BINDER Joint review nearly 700 pages @shellenberger @galexybrane FBI interview: Christopher Steele Calls President Trump “Main Opponent” 26 page FBI summary Christopher Steele 2017 interview provides more granularity about Steele’s relationship with the bureau, his personal dislike of President Trump as well as eye-popping expense reports. According to the interview, Steele and his business partner “apologized for going to the press in the fall of 2016.” The 2016 media reports about the dossier were cited in the FBI’s FISA applications for Trump campaign aide Carter Page. This is know as “circular reporting.” Further, Steele and his business partner “described President Trump as their ‘main opponent.’” Russiagate Binder includes Steele expense reports. July 2016 payment request documents an “Aggregate Total Paid: $74,000.00” More analysis this weekend for subscribers!
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
On the news the EU is planning a billion dollar fine on X for insufficient censoring “disinformation” it’s worth revisiting my warnings on this from 1.5 years ago https://t.co/rZqmUlYE7U
Video Transcript AI Summary
The EU will implement new rules on August 25 requiring compliance with EU disinformation rules for Twitter to operate in the EU market. NewsGuard is offering itself as a disinformation compliance service to meet these new EU laws.
Instead of direct coercion from entities like DHS, companies may need to use services like NewsGuard to comply with EU disinformation regulations. This is presented as similar to the rise of DEI programs needed for ESG scores or government contracts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One thing to really be out on the lookout for here is something around disinformation compliance. Now this is gonna be big because on August 25 sorry. It's a little hot out here. On August 25, just weeks away, the EU is going to kick into motion these these new rules requiring compliance with EU disinformation rules for Twitter to continue to do business in the EU market. NewsGuard is already billing itself as a disinformation compliance service to comply with these new EU disinformation laws.
So you have the situation right now where what they're trying to do is rather than have DHS force Twitter through coercive pressure and twisting their arm, they're going to have entities like NewsGuard step in. And in order to comply with the EU disinformation regulations, you're going to need to buy NewsGuard's disinformation compliance service. Very similar to how this whole compliance with DEI industry popped up when when you needed, DEI programs for your ESG scores or to qualify for government contracts. It's very nasty stuff, and it's coming soon.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Chief Justice John Roberts spent a week living at Norm Eisen's 150-room palace in the Czech Republic where they "worked on American and European Rule of Law issues together." Eisen was Ambassador 2011-2014. Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005. This was while Roberts ran SCOTUS. https://t.co/u7YZazt7Re
Video Transcript AI Summary
Norm Eisen stated that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is not corrupt. While Eisen was the US Ambassador to the Czech Republic, Roberts stayed with him for a week, and they collaborated on American and European rule of law issues.
The speaker claims that "rule of law" is a "weasel word phrase" implying control over judges, prosecutors, courts, and law schools. They suggest that these "rule of law programs" are used to control countries and manipulate their laws.
Eisen lived in a 150-room mansion in Prague during his ambassadorship. The speaker questions what specific American and European rule of law issues Eisen and Roberts worked on together during Roberts' stay. The speaker wants all "rule of law" programs declassified.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This incredible sixteen seconds pulled up by the researcher. Norm Eisen said his good friend, supreme court justice John Roberts was not corrupt and that John went to the Czech Republic for a week so that they could spend more time working on American rule of law issues together.
Speaker 1: John Roberts is not corrupt. I know the chief justice well. He stayed when I was ambassador, stayed under my roof, came and spent a week with us. We worked on American and European rule of law issues together.
Speaker 0: Did you hear that? John Roberts, while Norm Eisen was The US Ambassador to The Czech Republic, Chief Justice of the supreme court, John Roberts. Yes. That John Roberts stayed under Norm Eisen's roof, stayed with him for a week as Norm Eisen and chief justice John Roberts rigged the judicial system in Europe, worked on European rule of law issues. Now, again, rule of law is their weasel word phrase for saying it's not a rule of kings where, you know, no one is above the law.
So the, you know, the the law has rule. The law rules over you, not not man, not a king, not a president. It's all about the law controls all controls all. So if you control if you control the law, if law rules all, and then you have these programs like this John Roberts Norm Eisen program in The Czech Republic to control the law, then you control everything. So having a program, a rule of law program, sometimes what we call governance programs or anti corruption programs, but they're all about control over the judges, the prosecutors, the courts, the law schools.
So this is what we're running into right now with all these district court judges who are nullifying everything Trump does, blocking him from shutting down agencies, blocking him from firing people. This is what it looks like when you've got these rule of law programs in a foreign country and they try to change their laws or they try to clean up their country. And I actually wanna get into some of these documents, in a bit here. But now Norm Eisen lived in a very peculiar place in the Czech Republic. He had a special house.
Here you go. Prague Palace. Norm Eisen with the former president of the Czech Republic in October 2000. The last palace in the next battle. Norm Eisen tells the epic story of democracy's long victory in Europe through a house's history.
Seven years ago, as the new US ambassador of the Czech Republic, again, of the state department for all things Czech Republic, Norm Eisen moved into one of Prague's most beautiful homes, a 150 plus room Beaux Arts mansion with a sweeping curved facade. He soon heard fascinating tales about its previous residence. A German general, one of Czechoslovakia's richest men. Okay. So he stayed in a 150 plus room mansion.
So when he goes on and he says.
Speaker 1: I know the chief justice well.
Speaker 0: I know the chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, well.
Speaker 1: He stayed when I was ambassador. Stayed under my roof. Can't
Speaker 0: He stayed under my roof. So he stayed in Norma Eisen's a 50 room mansion.
Speaker 1: Came and spent a week with us. We worked on
Speaker 0: He he came and spent a week with us. We worked on
Speaker 1: American and European rule of law issues to
Speaker 0: We worked on American and European rule of law issues. I wanna know what exact issues they worked on. What issues what American and European rule of law issues did Norm Eisen and John Roberts staying at Norm Eisen's house work on for a week? Was it rule of law issues in Romania, in France? Obviously, in The Czech Republic because if you remember, Norm Eisen was effectively doing this, like, regime change operation through arresting all the political opponents.
But he said American and European rule of law issues. I want every single one of these rule of law programs completely declassified. This is one of my one of my side quests right now.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Ending USAID is a necessary but not sufficient condition
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
In March 1965, the New York Times reported the CIA had contaminated 14,135 bags of Cuban sugar bound for Russia to “create discord between Cuban and Russian authorities” and JFK had to step in and turn the ship around. The CIA’s confession here remained redacted until March 2025 https://t.co/Nvh7oduy8s
@420joke - rush
Maybe most damning- the CIA put a contaminating agent in Cuban sugar headed for the Soviet Union https://t.co/DNNEWlMFKi
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Shocking reveal in the new JFK Files that basically confirms the Pentagon creation of and intent to deploy the tick-borne viruses (Lyme, etc) detailed in Kris Newby's book Bitten
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
The fact that transgender activists are so overrepresented in violent terror attacks (school shootings, destabilizing street riots, arson against Teslas) gives you a window into why the CIA (sorry, "USAID") sponsors and supports so many transgender network nodes around the world
@DailyCaller - Daily Caller
🚨BREAKING: Three of four alleged Tesla facility and charger vandals appear to identify as transgender or nonbinary. The alleged perpetrators of different Tesla properties all identify as transgender, cross dress or go by ‘she/they’ pronouns. https://t.co/Kt0qycv3Lt
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
This has got to be the final word on the absolute disaster of the adverse side effects of the jab. 99 million subjects, 22 different credentialed co-authored public health professionals spanning both research universities & national governments. Save it, bookmark, send to friends
@NicHulscher - Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
⚠️REMINDER - The largest COVID-19 “vaccine” safety study ever conducted, involving 99 million individuals, confirmed that the injections are NOT SAFE FOR HUMAN USE: ➊ 610% increased risk of myocarditis following mRNA platform injection. ➋ 378% increased risk of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following mRNA injection. ➌ 323% increased risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) following viral-vector injection. ➍ 249% increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following viral-vector injection.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
I don’t know if these women are unfaithful but virtually every bad judge’s wife seems to be in bed with some guy named USAID
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: The wife of Obama judge blocking Trump's deportation of illegal criminal aliens is the founder of an abortion NGO funded, indirectly, by USAID and Soros. Pictured below, Elizabeth “Liddy” Manson giving Douglas Emhoff and Secretary Xavier Becerra a tour of her abortion clinic.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Spicy. But also: how refreshing to see em just say it like it is. Instead of cloaking the whole thing in weasel language like “Building Resilience” & “Promoting Democracy.” A lot of ppl yearn for the drive-thrus & milkshakes of the 1950s. I yearn for its honesty about dirty work https://t.co/PhJov15Goc
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸JFK FILES: FBI RUSHED TO SHUT DOWN CONSPIRACY TALK HOURS AFTER OSWALD’S DEATH Just hours after Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover demanded a quick public report to stop conspiracy theories from spreading. Hoover wrote that “there is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead,” and he wanted to ensure the public believed Oswald acted alone. The memo also shows the FBI was frustrated that Oswald’s murder left them without a chance to get more answers. Rather than investigate further, the FBI pushed for a clear and simple conclusion—before all the facts were even in. Source: JFK File 198-10007-10029
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇯🇵 JFK FILES: CIA MONITORED JAPAN’S BUND (BEHEIREN) FOR VIETNAM TIES Declassified documents reveal the CIA tracked BEHEIREN—Japan’s “Peace for Vietnam” Committee—formed in 1965 as an anti-American, anti-Vietnam War group. Despite being presented as independent intellectuals,… https://t.co/439UHSaJQQ
