reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript presents a cascade of allegations and observations surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak and related operations: - It is claimed that “every time there is something that comes out that is in fact false information that is starting to actually hamper our ability to address the pandemic,” and that there are two months during which “we have all these modern technologies” in place to respond after false information emerges. - A suggestion is made that the outbreak was simulated or anticipated two months before it began, with dialogue implying the virus had already circulated for two months, and that such foresight was connected to a simulated scenario tied to the Wuhan military games in October 2019. - The speakers allege that information about a novel coronavirus with a “fern cleavage site insertion” leaked during the Wuhan games, and that “they” knew this and prepared a cover-up over the next two months, launching a tabletop exercise with media, intelligence agencies, the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and others. - They describe a “tabletop exercise” for a pandemic, described as event two zero one, conducted with pharmaceutical executives, the deputy director of the CIA (who later became the director of national intelligence), Avril Haines, and others. They claim this exercise was run “the week of the Wuhan games,” and that it involved a simulated global spread beginning with a coronavirus outbreak and evolving into a pandemic. - The dialogue asserts that the exercise was “hosted at Johns Hopkins, funded by Bill Gates,” and references a scenario where pigs in Brazil, not pangolins in China, are the initial hosts, with the simulation detailing widespread illness, hospitalizations, and international travel turning local epidemics into a global pandemic. - They allege that the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2015, under Avril Haines (then deputy director), approached Ralph Baric to discuss gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and that Baric was in contact with the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Shi Zhengli (the “Bat Lady”) regarding a possible project on coronavirus evolution in humans. - The speakers question Haines’s qualifications, noting she is described as a physicist and “research engineer,” and suggesting she could run the CIA or the entire intelligence community, including participating in a coronavirus response simulation. - They cite today’s reports about social media platforms detecting and removing accounts spreading pandemic-related misinformation, and argue that the deputy director of the CIA—who later became DNI—led a pre-pandemic censorship conference about pressuring social media to ban conspiracy theories that the virus originated from a lab or was linked to U.S. military projects. - The overall narrative ties together claims of advance knowledge, the existence of pre-pandemic simulations (event 201), connections between Johns Hopkins, the Gates Foundation, NATO, and corporate media, and the involvement of Avril Haines in both pre-pandemic discussions and post-pandemic censorship efforts.

The most alarming thing was the organized communication between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and tech companies, involving flagging content in large numbers. Four federal judges have ruled that this violates the First Amendment. Former FBI officials within Twitter and other groups worked to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story, despite it not violating Twitter's terms of service. The FBI and CIA had their own internal groups within Twitter. The Aspen Institute held a workshop to discourage coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Content moderators at social media platforms have too much power in determining what Americans can say and see. This collusion between unelected bureaucrats and tech companies is inappropriate and a form of election interference. The censorship organizations tend to have a biased leaning.

The media allegedly censored certain COVID-19 related theories, including the virus's origin from a lab leak, the ineffectiveness of masks, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Facebook banned the lab leak claim, but the FBI and Department of Energy later suggested a lab incident in Wuhan was likely. YouTube suspended Rand Paul for stating that masks don't work well, and Facebook throttled a science journalist who opposed mask mandates for kids. The media initially dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian interference, with Twitter blocking its sharing and Facebook suppressing it. While the media now admits the story's authenticity, they downplay its importance. The government also allegedly pressured social media companies to censor content. The White House urged Facebook to crack down on private messages, and various government agencies, including the FBI and DHS, made moderation requests to Twitter. The Department of Homeland Security created a Disinformation Governance Board, which was later terminated due to public backlash.

Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council were used as a front by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to manipulate social media during the 2020 election. The goal was to censor posts containing misinformation about mail-in ballots and other election-related topics. DHS lacked the legal authority to directly censor, so they set up the Election Infrastructure Partnership (EIP) to fill the gaps. These outside organizations received federal funding and worked closely with DHS to ban or throttle millions of posts and accounts. The entire operation was orchestrated to rig the election. The question now is whether there will be political accountability for these actions.

Former military contractors, including those currently employed, along with individuals from the navy, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security, were involved in censorship and the use of psychological operations and disinformation tactics against the American people. These tactics, developed by the US military and allies, were turned against the American people after Trump's election in 2016. Social media companies, with potential government support, engaged in mass censorship. The Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020 played a significant role in this story. FBI personnel were working at Twitter when it censored the New York Post story about the laptop, creating the perception of illegitimacy. The laptop was later confirmed to be real, debunking the conspiracy theory of Russian manipulation. US intelligence officials spread disinformation about the laptop, leading many to be deceived.

In 2016, the US saw a shift towards mass censorship following events like the Ukraine coup. NATO and the Pentagon adopted a "from tanks to tweets" approach, focusing on controlling information online. This led to the development of AI censorship tools and the establishment of connections between government agencies and tech platforms. The narrative of Russian influence was used to justify censorship efforts, which intensified after Trump's election. However, the collapse of Russiagate in 2019 left the censorship infrastructure without a clear justification.

CIA and FBI whistleblowers warn of dangerous compromises, including allegations that a CIA team was paid to alter its assessment of COVID-19 origins, violating the COVID Origins Act. The administration is accused of redacting information and withholding the names of scientists who fell ill at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's claimed the government has abused its power across multiple agencies, including the FBI, by hyping domestic violent extremism cases and the DHS, by creating a disinformation governance board. A "deep trust alliance" with ties to security and intelligence agencies allegedly attempted to control the narrative of reality. The administration, from the White House to various agencies, is accused of colluding with social media companies to censor specific accounts and speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Social media platforms complied, acting as tools of the government. Facebook allegedly censored information about COVID vaccine side effects at the White House's insistence, even when it increased vaccine hesitancy. There are concerns about expanding the definition of "harm" to justify censorship, which endangers free speech.

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.

Judiciary committee chairman Jim Jordan revealed that Facebook censored Americans over COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Internal emails exposed the White House pressuring Facebook to remove content, and Facebook complied after meeting with Biden's surgeon general. The Biden administration demanded the censorship of true stories about vaccine side effects and discussions on the lab leak theory. Twitter files journalist Michael Shellenberger expressed surprise at the extreme censorship and the Biden administration's blatant demands. He called for Congress and the Supreme Court to take action against the violation of the First Amendment and the abuse of power by big tech companies. He also highlighted YouTube's censorship of a video about censorship. The ongoing censorship raises concerns about future election interference.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving never-Trump Republicans, DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign using Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council. These institutions, linked to the Pentagon, aimed to control social media to prevent questioning of mail-in ballots' legitimacy. The campaign involved threats to tech companies, resulting in a new censorship policy called delegitimization. This pre-censorship effort targeted 22 million pro-Trump posts on 15 platforms to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory. The goal was to avoid election crisis due to mail-in ballot discrepancies.

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.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media with 4 Pentagon-linked institutions. They aimed to prevent questioning of mail-in ballot legitimacy. The group coerced tech companies to censor content through threats and pressure, resulting in millions of posts being banned or limited. The campaign was set up months before the election to avoid a crisis if the election results were disputed. The group's actions were based on the belief that a Biden victory would rely on mail-in ballots.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts, later including the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA. SAISA is allegedly responsible for censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, could alter posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban users. The speaker claims their Instagram account with almost 1,000,000 followers was removed for "misinformation," despite no factually incorrect posts. Facebook reportedly pushed back, acknowledging the information was true, leading to the invention of the term "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government—which was then categorized alongside disinformation and misinformation. Emails allegedly show Facebook employees privately criticizing the White House, recognizing their actions as illegal but driven by immense pressure. Facebook and other media companies have deals with government and intelligence agencies, and the White House threatened their Section 230 immunity if they didn't comply.

The speaker discusses how the US Department of Defense censored Americans during the 2020 election cycle. They explain that a group within the Atlantic Council and the foreign policy establishment pushed for a permanent domestic censorship government office to counter misinformation and disinformation. This office was eventually established within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through an obscure cybersecurity agency called CISA. The speaker details how this agency, with the combined powers of the CIA and FBI, classified online misinformation as a cybersecurity attack on democracy. They further explain how Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council, all Pentagon-associated institutions, were involved in a coordinated mass censorship campaign to pre-censor any disputes about the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. This campaign involved pressuring tech companies to adopt new terms of service speech violation bans. The speaker suggests that this censorship operation was orchestrated to ensure the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a red mirage blue shift event. They also mention the connection between this operation and the impeachment of Trump in late 2019.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and the DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media to prevent disputing mail-in ballot legitimacy. They partnered with Stanford, University of Washington, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council, all linked to the Pentagon. Using threats and pressure, they forced tech companies to ban content questioning mail-in ballots. This was done to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory due to mail-in ballots. The group aimed to control the narrative and prevent election crisis.

The narrative shifted from viewing Russian disinformation as a threat to recognizing domestic disinformation as a danger to democracy. This led to calls for censoring Americans to protect democratic values. The definition of democracy was reinterpreted to prioritize institutional consensus over individual voices. Following Trump's 2016 election and the rise of right-wing populism, there was a belief that populism posed a similar authoritarian threat as left-wing ideologies. The argument emerged that democracy requires safeguards against demagoguery, suggesting that institutional protections are necessary to prevent voters from choosing undesirable leaders. This discussion took place at U.S. government conferences as early as 2017, advocating for these "guardrails" in democracy.

This hearing examines the Department of Homeland Security's role in censoring American voices through supposedly independent organizations. While protecting election infrastructure from foreign disinformation was the initial goal, it expanded to include countering domestic misinformation. The government created NGOs, like the Election Integrity Project, to do what it couldn't do directly. CISA acted as a switchboard to flag and notify social media platforms of misinformation, resulting in millions of tweets categorized as such. The same tools were used to censor COVID-19 narratives, some of which were later proven true. Concerns arise about DHS overreaching its jurisdiction and expanding censorship to various topics. The hearing questions the failure of leadership within DHS and the potential threat to civil liberties.

Mike Benz, a former State Department official and cybersecurity expert, discusses how the US government has weaponized its power to control media and censor citizens. He explains that the foreign policy establishment, including the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, has historically used these tactics against foreign governments but has now turned them on the American people. Benz outlines the chronology of how the government established censorship centers within agencies like the Global Engagement Center and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to control social media and suppress populist political movements. He also raises questions about the government's role in COVID-19 censorship and the origins of the virus.

To protect social media companies from government pressure to censor content, an incoming administration could issue an executive order on day one. This order would prohibit government grants and contracts to any private company or nonprofit involved in domestic disinformation. It effectively addresses the issue of government-funded censorship. By targeting grants and contracts across various agencies, this approach could dismantle the censorship industry, which has grown significantly since the 2016 election. Today, many individuals rely on this industry for their livelihoods, a situation that emerged in response to the political landscape following Trump's victory.

37 hours after President Biden's inauguration, the White House opened a portal for the FBI to access social media posts. The FBI then invited the CIA, DHS, IRS, and SAISA, which is allegedly in charge of censoring information the government doesn't want Americans to hear. These agencies, including the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts, slow walk content, and shadow ban posts. The speaker's Instagram account, with almost 1,000,000 followers, was removed for alleged misinformation, but the speaker claims that they never posted anything factually erroneous. The speaker claims that Facebook pushed back, stating that the posts were not misinformation. The White House then allegedly invented the term "malinformation," defined as factually true information inconvenient for the government. Facebook employees allegedly privately described the White House as cynical and terrible, believing their actions were illegal but were under pressure due to deals with the government and threats to Section 230 immunity.

Government officials allegedly coerced Facebook and Twitter to censor posts via threatening emails, according to the transcript. A Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, purportedly sent explicit threats to Facebook demanding content removal. High-ranking government officials had a special portal to flag content to senior executives at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, outsourcing censorship. Universities like Stanford and the University of Washington were allegedly used to flag "wrong think," which then led to government pressure on social media companies. The speaker asserts this network, like the "story of COVID," was about power and control, with entities exceeding their authority. The OSHA vaccine mandate is cited as an example of an agency overstepping its original purpose.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.

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.