reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker testified about the censorship industrial complex, revealing that it is worse than previously thought. Internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League showed military contractors working to censor and use psychological operations against Americans. While some argue that social media platforms have the right to censor content, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Evidence suggests that the government encouraged private entities to engage in censorship. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) played a central role, along with other government agencies. CISA created the Election Integrity Partnership, which urged platforms to censor posts, resulting in a 75% response rate. CISA and the White House also demanded censorship of COVID-related content. The speaker calls for defunding and dismantling these organizations, or implementing significant oversight to prevent future censorship. They also suggest making liability protections contingent on transparent moderation and public reporting of censorship requests.

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act, created in 1948, acknowledged the potential dangers of a "covert permanent department of dirty tricks" influencing foreign universities, media, and politics to promote US interests. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created a media network to influence international narratives. The Smith-Mundt Act originally prohibited the use of these propaganda efforts domestically, aiming to protect Americans from manipulation while securing economic advantages through foreign influence. However, the speaker claims this protection has eroded, leading to a deeper problem where the foreign policy establishment funds groups that operate both abroad and domestically, influencing media and promoting censorship. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties to prevent the misuse of propaganda and protect domestic interests.

The speaker discusses the issue of censorship in the United States and how it is eroding freedom of speech. They explain that censorship is now being justified under the guise of fighting disinformation and misinformation, and that even factual and truthful statements can be labeled as disinformation and censored. The speaker highlights the role of the government in directing these censorship efforts, particularly in relation to the military industrial complex and the defense industry. They also discuss the censorship of the 2020 election and the manipulation of public opinion through coordinated efforts between government agencies and mainstream media. The speaker warns that platforms like X, which currently offer more freedom of speech, are under pressure and may face increased censorship in the future.

Foreign governments are using their own laws to censor information for Americans, like the EU's Digital Services Act, which threatens companies with fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between these foreign entities and tech companies to reveal this pressure. We're also sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazil to put them on notice that we're watching their actions. It's unacceptable for foreign governments to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We saw this with the Biden administration pressuring companies to censor, which thankfully has been stopped. Free speech is a core value of Western civilization, and we must protect it. We're aiming to safeguard the rights of Americans and help companies resist these shakedowns.

Speaker 1 states that a CIA analyst's whistleblower complaint, which led to President Trump's impeachment, relied on evidence from the USAID-funded OCCRP. Speaker 1 claims OCCRP also participated in the Russiagate hoax, and that USAID has a broad strategy for information control, including censorship and control of investigative journalism worldwide. Speaker 1 believes organizations like CISA that participated in First Amendment violations should be shut down, even if they perform valuable functions. Speaker 0 suggests government funding of foreign regime change is known, but questions if it's "borderline treason" when organizations protecting the U.S. undermine the government. Speaker 1 agrees, stating that weaponizing DHS, FBI, and CISA for regime change activities against the American people is "treasonous" and remains unresolved.

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.

In 2013, the United States legalized propaganda, allowing false narratives to be presented as factual news. The Smith Modernization Act repealed the 1948 Smith Munt Act, which previously prohibited the release of propaganda in America. This change made it easier to manipulate and deceive the American public. The act was signed into law by Obama, giving propaganda a reboot. Now, scripted and orchestrated propaganda can be propagated as factual news to the citizens. This legalization raises concerns about the erosion of freedoms and the potential for government manipulation.

The speaker testified about the censorship industrial complex, revealing that it is worse than previously thought. Internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League showed military contractors working to censor and use psychological operations against Americans. While some argue that social media platforms have the right to censor content, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. The whistleblower claims that the leader of the CTIL was present at the Obama White House in 2017 when instructed to create a counter disinformation project. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency played a central role in censorship, with other government agencies supporting it. The speaker calls for defunding and dismantling these organizations, as well as implementing oversight to prevent future censorship. They also suggest making liability protections contingent on transparent moderation and public reporting of censorship requests.

Project Mockingbird aimed to control the public via media, but was less effective with the rise of alternative media like podcasts. To beat the "deep state," one must challenge it in unfamiliar territory. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, passed in 2012 and enacted in 2013, legalized propaganda for US citizens, repealing the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act which had prohibited domestic release. Obama essentially reopened the door for Operation Mockingbird, allowing the CIA to propagandize Americans. High-level intelligence officials or people associated with the intelligence industry are running journals. The CIA is the biggest funder of journalism in the world through USAID. Intelligence agencies manipulated information on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Before 1975, the CIA compromised journalists from major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Politicians are repeating the same talking points from a script like actors.

The State Department is dismantling a censorship bureaucracy that began addressing online radicalization by groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. This entity, formerly known as the Global Engagement Center, expanded its scope to include foreign interference in elections and eventually targeted American political voices, labeling them as disinformation. According to the speaker, the center's director equated Trump's speech to that of foreign terrorists. The center allegedly funneled State Department funds to third-party groups that targeted individuals and organizations, which led to deplatforming and reduced visibility on social media. The speaker claims that this amounted to a government-run entity silencing political speech in America. Despite being renamed and moved, the State Department is now dismantling the center, redirecting $50 million to promote free speech. They plan an accountability project to document instances where the center was used against American political voices to prevent future misuse.

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 concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

The video discusses a plan for global censorship, revealing how the US government recruited NGOs and individuals to censor and subvert the American people. The goal was to replace terms like propaganda and censorship with "cognitive security" to control people's beliefs. The speakers emphasized the need to change people's narratives and beliefs subtly. They also mentioned the use of different methods and messages for different audiences based on their existing biases. The speakers admitted to being part of a private NGO working under the supervision of the US military to censor American citizens. They discussed tactics such as disarming protests, influencing public opinion through fake accounts and infiltrating private groups, and pressuring banks to close accounts. The full details can be found on Substack.

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.

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.

The discussion centers on the complex relationship between U.S. foreign policy and domestic impacts, particularly through agencies like USAID. It highlights how USAID funds various initiatives that often lead to unintended consequences, such as destabilizing foreign governments while simultaneously affecting American citizens. The conversation touches on the troubling nature of funding organizations that promote censorship and social unrest, drawing parallels between foreign operations and domestic issues like the Black Lives Matter movement. There is a call for reform, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency in how taxpayer money is used abroad, with suggestions for legislative changes to prevent misuse and ensure that U.S. interests are genuinely served. The overarching theme is the necessity of aligning foreign policy with the well-being of American citizens.

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent department conducting "dirty tricks" to influence foreign governments through media, universities, and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure resources and economic benefits for the US, but prohibited its use domestically. The speaker claims that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act under Obama effectively repealed this firewall. They express concern that the foreign policy establishment can now fund groups that influence domestic prosecutors and media, and promote social media censorship abroad that impacts US companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.

The speaker testified about the censorship industrial complex, revealing that it is worse than previously thought. Internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League showed military contractors working to censor and use psychological operations against Americans. While social media platforms have the right to censor content, the government is prohibited by the First Amendment from abridging freedom of speech. Evidence suggests that the government encouraged private entities to engage in censorship. The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) played a central role, along with other federal agencies. CISA created the Election Integrity Partnership, which urged platforms to censor posts, resulting in a 75% response rate. CISA and the White House also demanded censorship of COVID-related content. The speaker calls for defunding and dismantling these organizations, or implementing significant oversight to prevent future censorship. They also propose changes to section 230 liability protections and transparency in censorship requests.

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.

The speaker expresses concern about the Biden administration's creation of a "Ministry of Truth," comparing it to propaganda efforts in dictatorships driven by fear of independent thought. The speaker claims this body will use taxpayer money to flood mainstream media with a preferred narrative, drowning out alternative views, and silence dissent through intimidation. The speaker asserts that this Ministry formalizes existing practices, revealing the administration's intentions. The speaker hopes this transparency will galvanize the American people to reject these efforts and remove those supporting this "undemocratic, anti-free speech mission" from office.

A major piece of legislation was quietly signed into law that allows the US government to combat foreign propaganda by creating its own. The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016, sponsored by Senator Rob Portman, is designed to combat foreign propaganda from organizations such as RT, China's CCTV, or Iran's Press TV. There is currently no single US governmental agency charged with synchronizing strategies to counter foreign propaganda. This bipartisan bill will establish an interagency center at the State Department to coordinate counterpropaganda efforts. It also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, and other experts engaged in counterpropaganda work. This law essentially funds U.S. propaganda. Three years ago, an amendment removed the ban on the US government creating propaganda and showing it to US citizens, a ban that had been in place since 1948.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

The speaker discusses the erosion of freedom of speech in the United States due to censorship. They explain that censorship is now being justified as a means to combat disinformation and misinformation, but it is being used to silence individuals and control the narrative. The speaker highlights the role of the military industrial complex and defense contractors in this censorship, particularly in the context of global conflicts. They also discuss how the government, including the US government, is involved in directing these censorship efforts. The speaker emphasizes the need for awareness and understanding of how censorship operates in order to protect freedom of speech.

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.

In 2013, propaganda was legalized in the United States. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, buried within the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act. The original act authorized the State Department and mainstream media to engage in propagandizing foreign countries, but prohibited releasing that same propaganda in America for public consumption. Obama's signing of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act lifted this prohibition. Now, any propaganda, even if outrageous, is legal, making it easier to perpetrate false narratives on the American people.