reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Big tech's handling of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is concerning. They have been deferential to the CCP, which was invested in promoting lockdowns similar to those in Wuhan. Facebook and other companies elevated lockdown hysteria and suppressed those questioning it. This is troubling because lockdowns were not the norm in public health guidance before COVID, and it was a new concept influenced by China's experience. The relationship between big tech and the CCP is problematic, especially in fields like entertainment and the American economy.

I wanted to bring you an update from Washington and introduce Data Republican, a digital detective exposing government corruption. She uses AI to analyze data, revealing connections between agencies, media, and NGOs. Her research uncovered that USAID funneled nearly half a billion dollars into Internews Network, a secretive NGO working with media outlets worldwide. Interestingly, a board member at Internews is also the VP of Communications at Reddit. During the Cold War, entities like Internews aimed to prevent the spread of communism, but now, the funds continue to grow with unclear objectives. USAID also funds domestic programs, including CEPPS, which distributes billions to Republican and Democratic groups, creating a complex web of money controlled by powerful politicians, which looks like the deep state manipulating elections. Eliminating the Department of Education and empowering parents and schools would be more effective, as the current system is overly bureaucratic and fails to meet diverse learning needs.

The Internet was initially developed by the American military to manage the American empire and later handed over to the public for commercial use. Google was founded by PhD students with DARPA funding, which led to the creation of Google Maps. Jared Cohen, a key figure in the State Department, played a role in using social media for intelligence operations and was later hired by Google to work on solving geopolitical issues. Google Jigsaw, formerly Google Ideas, developed AI censorship tools like Perspective to regulate online content.

- The transcript analyzes a declassified 1983 CIA guide intended to train operatives in organizing riots in foreign countries. It includes a section (Tab f) on using agitators, including hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies, which can result in general violence. The guide states that the psychological war team must develop a hostile mental attitude among target groups so that at the given moment they can turn anger into violence against the regime the CIA aims to overthrow. - The document describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen into clusters of influence (ten teachers, ten lawyers, ten captains of industry, ten medical professionals) who will, in a gradual process, fuse their spheres of influence to form a united front at the appropriate moment. It asserts that with a force of 200 to 300 agitators, one can create a demonstration in which 10,000 to 20,000 could participate, given 200 back channels and 200 capacity-built assets. - The discussion situates this in the context of Nicaragua in 1983, noting the broader significance of 1983 as the year the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was founded and a reorganization of intelligence work through NGOs and democracy-promotion fronts. - The host emphasizes that the document was declassified only seven years ago and reviews the index of the guide, including tabs on interaction with the populace through group dynamics, armed propaganda, religious framing of guerrilla movements, political awareness of guerrillas, prohibitions on gratuitous violence, and, notably, the use of agitators and back-channel control. - The host quotes and highlights key passages: the CIA’s instruction that case officers’ psychological war teams must pre-create a hostile attitude in target groups so that their anger can be turned into violence against the regime; the instruction to create ethnic minority anger to be triggered at the right moment; and the explicit description of “arhat propaganda” and coercive tactics to build a nationwide front. - The discussion connects these findings to broader patterns of U.S. political warfare: the guide’s emphasis on “development and control of front organizations,” the concept of capacity building (capacity built assets with a back channel for control), and the division of labor among State Department, USAID, NED, and CIA to produce a deniable, layered influence network. - The host argues that development means capacity building of front organizations (universities, hospitals, media outlets, unions, etc.) and control is exerted through back channels to ensure these assets follow a political program, avoiding direct government fingerprints. - The transcript traces the alignment of soft power (USAID, NED, NGOs) with intelligence and military back channels to create and mobilize resistance movements. The host notes that the document’s framework envisions not only external interventions but also domestic applications, referencing the Transition Integrity Project (2020), which modeled a domestic color revolution around racial justice movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter) to influence political outcomes in the United States. - The host cites passages from the document about cultivating “front organizations,” the role of clergy, universities, unions, and media as assets, and the concept of back-channel control to prevent rogue activity while enabling covert support for a resistance movement. - The host draws connections between the 1983 Nicaragua operations and later U.S. domestic applications, highlighting that the same cluster-cell approach (organized by sphere of influence such as labor unions, youth groups, professional associations) is used to manipulate group objectives from within, steering the masses toward a justified violence moment. - The document’s section on “control of meetings and mass assemblies” describes covert commando elements within the resistance, including bodyguards, incident initiators, poster carriers, and slogan shouters, all under external command. It emphasizes turning peaceful protests into violence through inside elements, with the aim of provoking a police crackdown that can be used to legitimize international sanctions and justify diplomatic actions against the target government. - Throughout, the host reiterates that the guide is explicitly about political warfare and “psychological operations” with the target being the minds of the population, the troops, and the civil population, and that it frames the mass movement as something to be guided and provoked from within by a controlled network of trained operatives.

The defining characteristic of the United States is freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, is not limited to the private sector. Mike Benz, an expert on this issue, explains how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors manipulate this. Internet freedom, initially used for supporting dissident groups globally, has become a tool for censorship since 2014. NATO now views controlling media as crucial for political influence, targeting even domestic groups. This shift accelerated after the 2016 election, with Russiagate providing cover for domestic censorship. The 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic saw massive censorship, with government agencies and private entities working together to suppress dissenting voices. This system uses AI-powered tools to identify and remove content deemed harmful to "democratic institutions," effectively creating military rule disguised as democracy. The fight to preserve free speech is now centered on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), which are facing immense pressure from both governmental and international entities.

The discussion centers on the Smith-Mont Act (referred to as the Smithmont Act) and its modernization, arguing it enabled U.S. influence operations abroad while constraining them at home. The claim is that, after World War II, winning elections and shaping law in foreign countries required an apparatus to influence hearts and minds, which shifted warfare from military occupation to political subversion. In this view, the 1948 act authorized a covert, permanent department of “dirty tricks” to infiltrate and co-opt universities, unions, media, politicians, judges, and the broader “swarm army” of influence, effectively creating a global propaganda machinery controlled by the State Department, CIA, and later USAID. A key figure cited is Frank Wisner, associated with the so-called Wissner’s Wurlitzer, described as a “church organ” that could play the international media like a symphony to cause any media narrative to go viral worldwide. The assertion is that the United States and United Kingdom dominated early robust radio, film, TV, and print, enabling foreign propaganda operations. The Smith-Mont framework supposedly allowed the U.S. to plant fake news abroad—“propaganda abroad”—but prohibited such activities from affecting domestic audiences, shielding Americans from comparable interference. The speaker argues the rationale for this separation was economic: if foreign governments resisted resource access, military basing, or U.S. multinational operations, Americans would bear economic costs (lower living standards, fewer imports, higher prices). Thus, foreign influence operations were designed to be accessible abroad and barred from coming home. This protection lasted about seventy years but is claimed to have eroded in the last decade, with reference to a broader “Smithmont problem” now affecting funding and operations. The claimed evolution is that the foreign policy establishment can fund groups that operate domestically in a dual-use fashion—providing foreign grants for media propaganda abroad while also operating within the U.S.—and can influence social media censorship to coerce foreign governments into enacting censorship laws that affect U.S. peer-to-peer speech. The speaker warns that, to preserve the foreign influence function, there must be a hard firewall and severe penalties for any violations, implying the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between foreign propaganda activities and domestic communications. Overall, the transcript asserts that the Smith-Mont framework created a permanent, cloaked apparatus for influencing foreign audiences, with a historical showcase of Wisner’s organization and its reach, while stressing the need to reinstate stringent firewalls and penalties to prevent domestic misuse of such operations.

The discussion centers on India’s position in 2025 amid a shifting international order and U.S. efforts to recalibrate a multipolar world. - The year 2025 is characterized as eventful for India, with the country under pressure to choose a path in a world where power is more distributed. The conversation opens with a framing of the U.S. adjusting to multipolarity, the return of Trump, and various global tensions, noting that India’s role has received relatively less attention. - Speaker 1 reflects that 2025 was not a good year for India. At the start of the year, India expected to remain a fulcrum of U.S. policy to contain China and to shuttle between powers, maintaining a growing trade relationship with China while navigating U.S. pressures. The Trump presidency disrupted this balance. India perceived U.S. interference in its domestic politics, including alleged U.S. fingerprints in color revolutions in Bangladesh and Nepal, and a perception that U.S. entities like the National Endowment for Democracy were involved. The 50% trade tariff on India by the U.S. shocked New Delhi, and Trump’s public and private statements criticizing India complicated the relationship. - The discussion notes India’s sensitivity to becoming overly dependent on the U.S. for strategic protection against China, given Modi’s emphasis on Indian sovereignty and self-reliance. Modi’s perceived humility toward Trump, followed by a cooling of the relationship after Trump’s tariff threats, created a crisis of confidence in the U.S.-India alignment. Modi’s personal interactions with Trump—such as a cordial birthday exchange followed by threats of 100% tariffs on India—were seen as signaling mixed signals from Washington. - India’s options in 2025 include: (1) retrenchment and continuing to seek a balancing act between the U.S., China, and Russia; (2) charting an independent course by strengthening ties within BRICS and the Global South; or (3) aligning more with the U.S. with the hope of future U.S. policy shifts. The economic reality complicates choices: while India’s exports did reasonably well despite tariffs and some FDI, opening Indian dairy and agriculture to the U.S. market would threaten farmers’ livelihoods, potentially destabilizing an electorate sensitive to domestic issues. - There is a broader point about Washington’s approach: demand loyalty from regions and countries while using tariffs and pressure to shape alignment, and Trump’s approach is described as a fear-and-intimidation strategy toward the Global South. - On the China-India axis, the speakers discuss how China’s rise and India’s size create a power disparity that makes simple dominance difficult for either side. India’s strategy involves leveraging BRICS and other forums (including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO) to expand multipolar governance and reduce dependence on a single power center. The interlocutors emphasize that BRICS operates by consensus and is not a vetoed UN-style body; thus, it offers a platform where major powers can cooperate without a single dominant voice. - The potential paths for India include growing within BRICS and the Global South, seeking mutual economic advantages, and developing a strategy that reduces vulnerability to U.S. coercion. One line of thought suggests using digital tools to help Indian small and medium-sized enterprises access global markets, and building coalitions using shared developmental and financial needs to negotiate better terms in global trade, similar to how an OPEC-like approach could coordinate commodity pricing for the Global South. - The conversation also touches on border and regional issues: a historical context where Russia resolved border tensions with China via settlements that altered the balance of power; the suggestion that India and China could adopt joint administrative arrangements for disputed border zones to reduce conflict risk and foster cooperation, though this requires careful handling to avoid loss of face for either side. - The role of China is described as patient and multipolar-friendly, seeking to buy more from India and to cultivate mutual trade, while recognizing India’s internal challenges, such as power reliability and structural issues like caste and crony capitalism, which affect India’s ability to produce and export higher-value goods. - The broader takeaway is a vision of a more integrated multipolar Eurasia, where India’s leadership within BRICS/SC0 and its ability to create innovative economic arrangements—such as “resource bourses” or shared supply chains—could alter the balance of power and reduce dependency on U.S. policy dynamics. There is an emphasis on avoiding a new Cold War by fostering dialogue and joint governance mechanisms that include China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and other Global South actors. - The speakers close with a cautious optimism: 2026 could be better if nations learn to push back against coercive power, redefine security around development and governance rather than force, and pursue multipolar institutions that preserve autonomy while enabling peaceful competition. The expectation is that seeds of hope exist within these analyses, even as the present year has been challenging.

America's exceptionalism stems from its free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, isn't about truth but about silencing inconvenient voices. Mike Benz, an expert on this, reveals how the military-industrial complex and foreign policy establishment weaponized internet freedom, initially using it for regime change, then turning it inward to control narratives and elections. This involved using social media companies and government-funded organizations to censor dissent, framing it as a national security threat. This has fundamentally altered American governance, potentially leading to military rule. The future of free platforms like X is precarious, facing pressure from the US government and the EU's Digital Services Act.

I received an email informing me that my LinkedIn account had been shut down. My friends couldn't find me on the platform anymore. LinkedIn stated that my account was restricted for sharing misleading or inaccurate content. The specific offenses were a video where I mentioned the CCP playing the Biden administration, another video discussing the climate religion and its objectives, and a statement that the climate agenda is a lie. LinkedIn claimed I violated their policies on hate speech, misinformation, and violence. This incident highlights the concerning power of tech companies, acting as a hybrid of corporate and state power, to silence speech that the government couldn't censor directly. I will fight to restore free speech and internet freedoms in our country.

Many people believe that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and that its content moderation decisions are meant to manipulate young Americans. However, investigations have shown that the CIA and FBI are actually influencing TikTok's censorship. The founders of TikTok, who are capitalists, want to maintain access to the lucrative US market and have agreed to let the US government dictate what content should be censored. This is part of the US government's broader effort to control communication channels and ensure that critical videos or topics are censored according to their interests. TikTok's compliance with political censorship is driven by profit rather than ideology.

The situation with the Red Note app, a Chinese alternative to TikTok, is intriguing. Following the TikTok ban, Gen Z is rebelling by downloading Red Note, which has quickly risen to the top of the App Store. Users are engaging in cultural exchanges with Chinese citizens, sharing experiences and learning Mandarin. This reflects a broader realization that many perceptions about other countries stem from propaganda, while most people worldwide share similar values and desires for their communities. The evolution of the internet is empowering individuals to make their own choices, challenging government control. Amidst differing opinions on the app, the overall sentiment is one of hope and solidarity, showcasing a collective push for freedom and connection across borders.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

They are pushing for a TikTok ban, with leaked recordings suggesting a powerful lobby influencing politicians. The Anti-Defamation League head highlights TikTok as a generational problem with significant political influence. A Time Magazine article calls for TikTok's sale or ban before the 2024 election, focusing on the lobby's control rather than China's involvement. It's revealed that a foreign government has infiltrated the US, but not the one commonly believed.

"This was a scandal, during Obama the Obama USAID, era." "Now we were running a number of of rogue USAID operations in Cuba at the time." "This is an online social social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users." "This was a Twitter knockoff." "02/2009, 02/2014." "they took funds, millions of dollars of funds that were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan." "The network dubbed the Cuban Twitter reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers." "The data would then be used for micro targeting efforts towards anti and pro government users in Cuba." "Once they hit a critical mass, they would begin to introduce political messages through social bots and encourage dissent in this astroturfing." "There would be 'smart mobs' and rental riots." "If something has diplomatic blowback and we don't want US fingerprints on it, we need a formal intelligence agency because there's diplomatic blowback."

APAC, a powerful lobbying group, boasts about influencing US politicians without registering as a foreign agent. In the past, they almost had to register under FARA, but the effort was dropped after JFK's assassination. Despite US laws requiring disclosure of foreign influence, APAC remains unregistered to hide funding sources. This lack of transparency allows them to sway elections and policies against public opinion. It's crucial to prevent foreign interference, like China's control of social media, to protect American democracy.

Speaker believes that China and the United States are competing at more than a peer level in AI. They argue China isn’t pursuing crazy AGI strategies, partly due to hardware limitations and partly because the depth of their capital markets doesn’t exist; they can’t raise funds to build massive data centers. As a result, China is very focused on taking AI and applying it to everything, and the concern is that while the US pursues AGI, everyone will be affected and we should also compete with the Chinese in day-to-day applications—consumer apps, robots, etc. The speaker notes the Shanghai robotics scene as evidence: Chinese robotics companies are attempting to replicate the success seen with electric vehicles, with incredible work ethic and solid funding, but without the same valuations seen in America. While they can’t raise capital at the same scale, they can win in these applied areas. A major geopolitical point is emphasized: the mismatch in openness between the two countries. The speaker’s background is in open source, defined as open code and weights and open training data. China is competing with open weights and open training data, whereas the US is largely focused on closed weights and closed data. This dynamic means a large portion of the world, akin to the Belt and Road Initiative, is likely to use Chinese models rather than American ones. The speaker expresses a preference for the West and democracies, arguing they should support the proliferation of large language models learned with Western values. They underline that the path China is taking—open weights and data—poses a significant strategic and competitive challenge, especially given the global tilt toward Chinese models if openness remains constrained in the US.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including the US and UK, orchestrated attacks, falsely labeling me a Chinese propagandist and coordinating censorship efforts through organizations like Coda Story, which has ties to the CIA. My critiques, informed by academic sources, presented alternative perspectives on mainstream narratives, exposing the homogenized views of powerful institutions. This coordinated attack, which even involved Moderna tracking my content, reveals the lengths to which powerful interests go to suppress dissent. The accusations were made anonymously, and my own government contacted online providers to demonetize and censor me. This shows that independent media is a threat to those in power, and the open contest of ideas is a sham. The ongoing attacks are terrifying but also reveal the struggle for control over information.

Speaker 0 asserts that the control grid arrived in America via Apple, stating they worked for Apple for seventeen years and still hold stock, so they find no joy in revealing this. They claim there are no good guys here and argue that we need to shut it down while we can. They state that Apple just rolled out digital ID integration and acknowledge it sounds convenient, but warn that every convenience has a price. According to them, once identity goes digital, it becomes programmable, and once programmable, it becomes controllable. They contend that individuals are handing over their entire identity wrapped in a product, a file that can easily be deleted. If one does not comply, access is lost; if opinions are not liked, accounts are frozen. They claim that stepping out of line results in travel restrictions, bank transfer blocks, and loss of benefits. They insist this is not speculation and that it is already live. Examples are offered to illustrate the claim: Thailand has programmable digital currency; Europe introduced biometric wallets; Canada froze accounts during protests; China is described as having started the pilot and now in full production mode with a live social credit system. They assert that China is secretly building the infrastructure at a global level right now, not through laws or force, but through updates and convenience. They claim that in Vietnam, 86,000,000 bank accounts were deleted because people wouldn’t agree to a digital ID. Concerning the European Union, they state that by 2027, large cash payments will be outlawed, forcing people onto digital rails that can be controlled. They describe this as just the on ramp, arguing that freedom becomes conditional when identity is controlled by a corporation or a government that can revoke it with a keystroke. They describe the arrival of dystopia as occurring not with tanks or force, but with app updates or convenience. They conclude by urging listeners to pay attention and push back while they still can. The message ends with an appeal to “Let’s go,” emphasizing urgency to resist the rollout of digital identity and programmable control embedded in convenient updates and services.

The government's censorship power has grown rapidly, leading to the creation of a whole society censorship network involving various government agencies, universities, NGOs, and media outlets. This initiative was established after the 2016 election to combat misinformation and protect the international order. The government dictates speech policies, funds censorship efforts, and influences media organizations to control the narrative. This extensive censorship enterprise was deemed necessary to maintain the status quo and prevent the rise of populist movements that challenge the foreign policy establishment.

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.