TruthArchive.ai - 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 Global Engagement Center, established by Rick Stengel, aimed to synchronize government narratives with mainstream media. Stengel, who previously argued against the First Amendment, initiated this center to combat perceived threats like ISIS by collaborating with tech platforms to censor content. Following Trump's election, State Department officials pushed for censorship laws in Europe, leading to automated censorship mechanisms in the U.S. The Atlantic Council, with ties to the CIA and government funding, played a key role in promoting these laws. They developed AI tools to monitor and censor online speech, particularly around controversial topics like COVID-19 and the 2020 election, effectively suppressing dissenting narratives.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The discussion centers on the evolution of internet censorship, particularly since 2014, when the U.S. government began collaborating with tech companies and NGOs to combat perceived misinformation. The conversation highlights the intertwining of foreign policy and domestic censorship, especially after the 2016 election, which prompted a significant shift in how the government approached free speech. The role of organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Atlantic Council in shaping censorship policies is emphasized, as well as the influence of figures like Hunter Biden in this landscape. The dialogue also touches on the implications of these actions for democracy and the challenges faced by those attempting to reform these systems. The speakers express concern over the potential for censorship to undermine free speech and the integrity of democratic processes.

One of the 8,376 Department of Treasury employees launched an investigation into me the day I released one of the Twitter files. Months later, while I was testifying, some of those same employees made an unannounced visit to my home, even though they owed me money. A judge ruled that political appointees can't access certain information, but thousands of government employees can. USAID is involved in censorship efforts, too, using information operations to manipulate the media. They train NGOs to flag misinformation and strategically leak intelligence to control the news process. The values of Western civilization, like free speech, are worth fighting for. I have lived in countries where speaking your mind can send you to prison, and now I'm seeing that happen in the West. If we can't settle our disputes with debate, the alternative is frightening.

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 speaker announced a plan to dismantle what they described as a "left-wing censorship regime" and reclaim free speech for all Americans. They claimed that a "sinister group" is suppressing vital information. The plan includes: signing an executive order banning federal departments from colluding to censor speech; banning federal money for labeling domestic speech as misinformation; and firing bureaucrats engaged in censorship. The Department of Justice would investigate and prosecute those involved in online censorship for potential violations of various laws. House Republicans are urged to send preservation letters to prevent destruction of evidence. The speaker would ask Congress to revise Section 230, requiring platforms to meet neutrality, transparency, fairness, and nondiscrimination standards to qualify for immunity. The federal government should stop funding nonprofits and academic programs supporting censorship. Universities engaged in censorship activities should lose federal funding. New laws should enact criminal penalties for bureaucrats partnering with private entities to circumvent the Constitution. A seven-year cooling-off period should exist before former intelligence officials can work for companies with vast user data. Congress should pass a digital bill of rights, including digital due process, the right to be informed of content removal, and the right to appeal. Users over 18 should have the right to opt out of content moderation.

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 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.

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 censorship industrial complex persists in Europe, Australia, Britain, and Brazil, pushing for digital identification linked to social media. I faced a criminal investigation in Brazil after publishing the Twitter files. The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act to pressure platforms like X and Facebook to censor speech, threatening massive fines for non-compliance. Despite some victories for free speech, global elites see online censorship as crucial for global governance. NATO, the European Commission, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the UN, WHO, WEF, and various US agencies have all advocated for censorship. US deep state agencies have been manipulating global news for two decades, using counterterrorism tactics against Americans post-2016. I urge Congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and investigate its funding, including through shell organizations. Congress should also protect American social media users from censorship demands by Europe, Britain, and Brazil.

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.

Speaker 0 opens by noting the Trump administration recently launched a cyber strategy amid the war with Iran and expresses concern that war often serves as a Trojan horse for expanding government power and eroding civil rights. He examines parts of the plan that give him heartburn, focusing on aims to “unveil an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion,” and questions whether the government should police propaganda or cultural subversion, arguing that propaganda is legal and that individuals should be free to express themselves. Speaker 1, Ben Swan, counters by acknowledging that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, but suggests some of the language in the plan could be positive. He says the administration’s phrasing—“unveil and embarrass”—is not about prosecution or imprisonment but exposing inauthentic campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments. He views this as potentially beneficial if limited to highlighting non-grassroots, authentic concerns, and not expanding censorship. He argues that this approach could roll back some censorship apparatuses the previous years had built. Speaker 2 raises concerns about blurry lines between satire, low-cost AI, and authentic grassroots content, questioning whether the government should determine what is and isn’t authentic. Speaker 1 agrees that it should not be the government’s job to adjudicate authenticity and suggests community notes or crowd-sourced verification as a better mechanism. He gives an example involving Candace Owens’ expose on Erica Kirk and a cohort of right-wing influencers proclaiming she is demonic, labeling such efforts as propaganda under the plan’s framework. He expresses doubt that the administration would pursue those individuals, though he cannot be sure. The conversation shifts to broader implications of a new cyber task force: Speaker 1 cautions that bureaucracy tends to justify its own existence by policing propaganda or bad actors, citing the Russia-focused crackdown era as a precedent. He worries that the language’s vagueness could enable future administrations to expand control, regardless of party. The lack of specifics in “securing emerging technologies” worries both speakers, who interpret it as potentially broad overreach beyond protecting infrastructure, possibly extending into controlling information or AI outputs. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the biggest headaches for war hawks include platforms like TikTok and X, and perhaps certain AIs like Grok. He argues the idea of “securing emerging technologies” could imply controlling truth-telling AI outputs or preventing adverse revelations about Iran. Speaker 1 reiterates that there is no clear smoking gun in the document; the general language makes it hard to assess intent, and the real danger is the ongoing growth and persistence of bureaucracies that can outlast specific administrations. Toward the end, Speaker 1 notes Grok’s ability to verify videos amid widespread war-time misinformation, illustrating how AI verification could counter claims of fake footage, while also acknowledging the broader risk of information manipulation and the government’s expanding role. The discussion closes with a wary reflection on the disinformation governance era and the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing government overreach.

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.

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. This approach addresses the issue of government-funded censorship, allowing for the elimination of grants and contracts that support censorship activities. Currently, there are tens of thousands of individuals in the U.S. whose livelihoods depend on censorship work, a field that emerged in response to the 2016 election.

As a CIA analyst, the so-called whistleblower in the White House used evidence created by the USAID-funded OCCRP, for the impeachment of President Trump. USAID has a broad strategy for information control that includes censorship and controlling investigative journalism worldwide. Agencies that participated in violations of the First Amendment, like CISA, should face consequences. Cybersecurity is important, but shouldn't be undermined by censorship. It is borderline treason when organizations meant to protect our country undermine our own government. Weaponizing DHS, FBI, and CISA is treasonous if used for regime change activities against the American people. We developed these tactics abroad, and now they're being used against us, which is shocking and unresolved.

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 covert operation influencing foreign governments through media 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 economic advantages for the US, but prohibited them domestically. The speaker claims this protection was lost a decade ago and that the US faces a deeper problem with USAID, the Pentagon, and the State Department funding groups that operate both domestically and abroad. These groups allegedly engage in media propaganda and social media censorship, influencing foreign countries to pass laws that target US social media 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.

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.

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 Democrats aim to censor information, and Mike Johnson initially included provisions in the bill to facilitate this, only removing them after pushback. The situation is complex. Recently, the State Department informed the court about a lawsuit from The Daily Wire and The Federalists, which challenges the censorship by the Global Engagement Center. The State Department indicated that the Global Engagement Center may not be reauthorized and plans to reallocate its staff and funding to other offices for similar purposes. Essentially, the operations of the Global Engagement Center will persist, even without a formal office.

The speaker discusses the current "transatlantic flank attack 2.0" strategy, where state department exiles are working with the EU to pass censorship laws. The EU Digital Services Act, crafted with input from figures like Michael Hayden and Tom Ridge, poses a major threat to freedom of speech. X faces the choice of forfeiting revenue or implementing internal censorship mechanisms to comply with the law. This battle against censorship from Europe is a significant challenge for X.