This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify. The global commerce platform that supercharges your selling, wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash tech. All lowercase. That's Shopify.com slash tech.
The Big Tech Company's sensor are content. I hate to tell you that it's still going on in 2024, but you know what they can't censor? Live events. That's why we are hitting the road on a fall tour for the entire month of September, coast to coast. We'll be in cities across the United States.
We'll be in Phoenix with Russell Brand, Anaheim California with Vivek Ramaswami, Colorado Springs with Tulsi Gabbard, Salt Lake City with Glen Beck, Tulsa, Oklahoma with Dan Bungino, Kansas City with Megan Kelly, Wichita with Charlie Kirk, Milwaukee with Larry Elder,
Rosenberg, Texas with Jesse Kelly, Grand Rapids with Kid Rock, Hershey, Pennsylvania with JD Vance, Redding, Pennsylvania with Alex Jones, Fort Worth, Texas with Rose Ann Barr, Greenville, South Carolina with Marjorie Taylor Green, Sunrise, Florida with John Rich, Jacksonville, Florida with Donald Trump, Jr. You can get tickets at Tucker Carlson.com. Hope to see you there. Welcome to Tucker Carlson Show. We bring you stories that have not been showcased anywhere
else, and they're not censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at Tucker Carlson.com. Here's the episode. So this feels like, you know, there's been a lot of arrests in the last few years, including of a number of people. I know you know, get arrested for political reasons, but the
jailing of the founder and owner of Telegram feels like a pivot point. It feels like a moment in history and probably a harbinger of, you know, the next few years or decades. I hope I'm wrong. So the question is like, what is this? How did this happen? France arrests him on a fuel stop? He's a French citizen, by the way. What he lives in Dubai arrests
him. That's a big step. Very hard for a bystander without direct knowledge being me to believe that Macron could or would have done that without the encouragement or at least agreement of the Biden administration. You were the first person I thought of. Got you here as fast as we could. So I'm going to stand back and I would very much like to hear you explain what you think happened in this arrest. How would happen? What it means who is involved?
We don't know yet. And part of what I've been talking about, which is the suspected role of the US Embassy in the arrest or as you put it, I think perfectly, we don't know if it was participation or approval or nothing. And I'll play devil's advocate against my
own argument here. But I feel compelled to make this argument because we're not getting the answer from the Congress who should be getting it for us, which is to say that an entity like the House Foreign Affairs Committee, if it was committed to free speech, would
be interrogating whether or not there was a US Embassy back channel to French law enforcement or French intelligence or the French government in terms of doing this because this is a pattern of practice that the US Embassy is pursued all over the world, and particularly in Europe
through brands branding like anti-corruption or whatnot. This is something even dating back to Normais and when he was the ambassador to the Czech Republic, championing these sort of anti-corruption reforms from the Czech government to arrest the politicians who
essentially opposed the State Department agenda there. This is very common. If you go to places like the Journal of Democracy, which is the academic journal for the National Democratic for Democracy, which is a very probably the most notorious CIA cut out in the whole arsenal, they have whole academic journals on how to push the Poland government to arrest the politicians from the PIS party, from the law and order party, especially in the judicial
system. To arrest them? Yes. Yes. To mass arrest. We have a concept in American statecraft called transitional justice, which is this idea that essentially after the US overthrow the country, we arrest all of the opposition politicians, opposition judges, opposition journalists, propaganda spreaders in order to stop the reemergence of threats to democracy. No, I'm not sure. You make it a one party state. So it can be a democracy. Right. Well, this is. Is this China pushing this or the United
just to be clear or the United States? This is the United States. And we do that to stabilize the democratic institutions and effectively make it cheaper for the United States to manage, because you don't need to manage the constant recurring threat of the party you just vanquished. So this is this was something that that the US State Department was spearheading years before Trump got into office. And it was so effective that the same cast of characters
are back for Trump. Norm Eisen was one who spearheaded, you know, the impeachment drafted articles of impeachment before Trump was even even took the oath of office and also led the, you know, elements of the, you, the 2019 Ukraine impeachment, the law fair that's currently being done with the 90 plus felonies against Trump. So this is, this is a instrument of statecraft, the use of prosecutions in order to bring leverage against and to get rid
of pesky people who oppose the state department's priorities. But in the specific case of telegram, there's a lot going on here. Let's ask you to pause really quick. We could know a lot more about the Biden administration's involvement through the US Embassy in Paris, if a single house committee controlled by Republicans would just jump on it. Yes. I think that's what you said. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. And the problem is is our Congress is
not sticking up for us as the, as this is happening all over the world. Just this year, you know, the drama around Brazil has been a huge issue for Elon Musk and X. And one, you know, the House held the hearing on it. And then the House Foreign Affairs Committee title the hearing was Brazil, a crisis of democracy, rule of law and governance question mark. But they did not
interrogate the US State Department's role in censorship in Brazil. It was actually the US State Department who capacity built, spending tens of millions of dollars, the entire censorship ecosystem in Brazil. They spent tens of millions of dollars paying Brazilian journalists, Brazilian censors, Brazilian fact checkers, event members of the legal scholarship associated with Brazil's censorship court and effectively pressured through that NGO soft power swarm,
Brazil to set up the entire censorship architecture it now has. They set that up. Why would the US government, which represents the US Constitution and democracy be trying to end them? You can't have democracy with censorship by definition. So why would we be trying to end democracy in country after country? Like, what is the point of that? Well, this is one of the great
ironies of American state craft in the post 2016 era. Free speech has been an instrument of state craft since for, for, for US diplomacy, military and intelligence purposes since the 1940s. Free speech around the world has been something we've championed in part because we believe it, but in part, in large part, I should note, because this, this is how you can capacity build resistance movements or political movements or paramilitary movements in countries that the US
State Department seeks to attain political control over. If there's no free speech, then there's no political movement that you can capacity build to regime change the government or to maintain elements of control over the existing government. And so this is why the State Department capacity build all these NGOs. The USA does it as well, like Freedom House and the whole wing of,
for example, the 26 NGOs who condemned Russia for attempting to ban telegram in 2018. Why would 26 US government funded NGOs all say that Russia was attacking free speech in Russia by threatening to block telegram? What was because the US State Department was using telegram as through the power of its encrypted chat and all the functionality and the fact that so much of Russia was using it to foment protests and riots within Russia, just as they did in Belarus, just as they did in Iran,
just as they didn't Hong Kong, just as they attempted to do in China. So telegram is this very, very powerful vehicle for the US State Department to be able to mobilize protests, to be able to
galvanize political support against authoritarian countries. This is why the US government loved telegram so much from 2014 to 2020, because it was this powerful way to evade state control over media or state surveillance over private chats, because of the private functions and anonymous forwarding, all these unique features of telegram allow it to have US funded political groups or political
dissidents get tens of thousands of people to their cause with relative impunity. It's effectively unstoppable by a regime like Lukashenko in the summer of 2020 when the US government was effectively orchestrating a color revolution in Belarus and let me just take a sip for a second. Telegram was the main channel for that. The National Diamond for Democracy was actually paying the main administrators of the telegram channels who were orchestrating those riots, those protests.
Not employees of telegram, but people by the channel administrators, the people who were using it or organizing others to use it. You would get a telegram channel with a million people in it, and the administrator of it would be on National Diamond for Democracy payroll,
and the National Diamond for Democracy, even the head of it, which is a CIA cut out. It was basically created in a letter from the CIA director William Casey in 1983 as a means for the CIA to get control, get functions back that it had lost after the scandals of the church committee hearing
in 1975, 1976. The Reagan administration wanted to be able to get back the powers that the Democrats in the late 1970s considered to be human rights abuses and too much cloak and dagger stuff so they put it under the banner of the National Diamond for Democracy as a public facing NGO with the CIA back channel. Again, the CIA called for this and the founders of the National Diamond for Democracy, even openly say that they do what they do now with the CIA used to do.
Literally scrubbed from the legislative, from the original bill that the CIA would not coordinate it. It's one of the most prolific CIA cutouts in the arsenal. They were the ones who were paying the telegram channel administrators who were organizing these, the attempt to overthrow the the Belarusian government. I'm not even weighing in on the normative question about whether or not that's a good or bad thing. I will. It's terrible. All I care about is freedom of speech on the internet.
What people have to understand, and this is the point I've been screaming into the wind for eight years now, is that internet censorship is not some domestic event done by domestic actors, you know, intermediate by a domestic government and domestic tech platform policies. Internet censorship came to the United States and has been exported around the world because
free speech is a casualty of a proxy war of the blob against populism. And what I mean by the blob is our foreign policy establishment, which is primarily concentrated within the US State Department, the US intelligence services like the CIA, the Pentagon, USAID, and the soft power swarm army that we have through our NGOs and State Department CIA, USAID funded civil society institutions. And what happened was, is we've had this long-range plan to seize Eurasia. Russia has $75
trillion worth of natural resources in it. The United States only has 45 trillion, just to put in perspective how bountiful the region that we're so preoccupied with is. And if you recall, no less than Lindsey Graham frustrated at the lack of Republican political support for Ukraine aid finally implored, sort of took the mask off a few months ago and said, listen, even you don't believe in democracy, Ukraine's got $14 trillion worth of natural resources.
Even if it's just for cynical self-serving purposes, the US should support the war in Ukraine in order to control $14 trillion worth of mineral wealth and oil and gas wealth. And this is the story of Eurasia. After 1990, the US, the UK, and partners in NATO set on a quest to take political control over the territories of the former Soviet Union. And we're very successful until Vladimir Putin rose to power and began to assert energy diplomacy as a means for Russia to reassert
political influence over central and eastern Europe. This is one of the reasons that the Nord Stream pipeline was the absolute ire of the blob of our foreign policy establishment because those financial interlinkages to Europe were allowing Russian influence over its politics, over its economy, it fostering diplomatic ties, all these things which are flying the face of this long-range plan to seize Eurasia. And so, you know, with the Nord Stream case, you had sanctions on it prior
to it being blown up. You know, it came out in essentially leaked documents from something called the Integrity Initiative that the UK Foreign Office had been, you know, basically orchestrating orchestrating PR campaigns to get the Nord Stream pipeline killed in 2015. And so, you know, it being blown up is no surprise, you know, but if I understand, it's because of Russia's energy diplomacy with Europe, which is what gave rise to this whole need to kill Russia's energy connections.
And let me if I can just flush this out a little bit. If you can get rid of Russian energy relations with Europe, this is what the theory was, then you bankrupt Russia, you also strip them of their military industrial complex. Russia is the military enemy of the United States, not just in Europe now, but if you recall the Obama administration tried to invade Syria, and the only reason they were unable to do so is because Russia militarily backed up the Assad government.
And it's the same thing in Africa. You know, Africa is one third of the world's natural resource wealth. There's a mad scramble for the for the natural resources in Africa. And Russia is the bane of both the US and French military forces there. If you can bankrupt Russia through getting, you know, taking out Gazprom and its oil exports, then you you get rid of Russia's ability to be an armed supplier to the rebel groups there. Now getting back to the telegram case.
Telegram is an instrument of statecraft. And it's also an instrument of military and intelligence projection. So on the state craft side, we just talked about how telegram has been the darling of the CIA, the State Department, USAID for operations stretching from Belarus to inside of Moscow, to Iran, to Hong Kong, to China, and all over the world because it's got a billion users. And so it's very easy to get all the native population who you're trying to recruit to your political cause
onto the channels they're already using. And then also give them the anonymity and the and the encryption safety to be able to organize and express their political support safely, relatively safely. But the problem is because telegram is also an open playing field, because povl has not relinquished either to the United States or to Russia. It is also allowed
Russian propaganda to propagate. And this is a problem right now in Ukraine. Just two weeks after your interview with povl, the radio free Europe, which is in an institution that was created by the CIA and it was run directly for its first 20 years by the CIA, just two weeks after your interview with povl called telegram, a spy in every Ukrainian's pocket and made the argument that Ukraine needs to rest control over telegram and in a way out the following reasons for doing so. It said that
75% of Ukrainians currently use telegram and they have been using telegram. This is up from 20% just a few years ago because of povl's solidarity with the concept of free speech. It's been highly trusted for many years, but they're not sure if there's a Russian back channel now and they cite several reasons around povl's potential financing from a bond raise several years ago that
may have had Russian investors in it. They cite the fact that Russian internal documents promote the use of telegram for its own military, the fact that over 50% of Russia itself uses telegram, the fact that the fact that the Russian military uses it safely and has no problem with it. And the fact that there may be Russian financing of povl, this is the argument that they make, that perhaps it was compromised. Perhaps the reason Russia dropped its attempt to ban telegram after the 2018
affair may have been because an agreement was secretly reached. And if that is the case, then that would essentially make all of the military operations and all of the state craft and and secret channels that Ukraine is currently using be spied on, you know, all communications, the entire war effort. Maybe the reason Ukraine is losing is because Russia knows everything Ukraine is doing. We hear a lot from viewers about big tech censorship and those reports are more
frequent than ever right now. Censorship meaning shutting down your access to information, not lies or misinformation, but true things. It's only the truth that they censor, facts that get in the way of the lies are trying to tell you. The net effect of this, of course, is interfering in the 2024 presidential elections. That's why they're censoring more than ever now because the stakes are even higher. You're probably not shocked by this. But the specific examples of it do throw you back
a little bit. We've seen screenshots and videos showing how we Google search to learn more about the attempted assassination on Donald Trump. Instead, push users to information on Harry Truman or Bob Marley or the Pope. Anything other than the relevant truth, which is that they just shot Trump in the face. They don't want you to know that because it might help Trump. We've seen examples where Facebook marked true photos of a bloody, then defiant Trump as misleading. Somehow those pictures
rely and then limited their visibility. Its AI assistant explicitly denied the shooting ever took place. This is insanity, but it's at the core of big techs editorial policy, which is denying the truth to you in order to control the outcome of this presidential election. That's not democracy. We've seen examples where a generic search for information about Donald Trump was automatically rephrased to show positive stories about Kamala Harris instead. Is there any clear example of election
interference? So what do you do about it? Well, Parler has been down this road. Parler is pulled right off the internet for telling the truth. But it's back and it's reaffirmed its lifelong unwavering commitment to free speech. On Parler, the Bill of Rights lives. The first amendment is real. You can say what you think because you're a human being in an American citizen and not a slave. On Parler, users can freely express themselves, tell the truth, express their conscience,
and connect with others who are doing the same, and they will not be interfered with. They will not be censored. Designed to support a wide range of viewpoints, everyone is welcome on Parler. Parler is committed to ensuring that everybody is heard. And so it's become a place for independent journalism is protected and respected. It's protected because it's respected. So is this censorship by big tech intensifies? Standing up for your God-given right as an American
to say what you think is essential? We're on Parler. That's why we're on Parler. Our handle is at Tucker Carlson and we encourage you to join us there. You have the right to say what you believe so does every American and you can do it. I'm Parler at the Parler app today. The price of ground beef has doubled in recent years and the average quality has gone down with beef imports hitting over four billion pounds just last year. GoodRanchers.com is your solution. Stop
paying more for less. Get the most out of every meal with 100% American meat delivered to your door. With amazing steaks, chicken, pork, and wild-caught seafood sourced exclusively from local U.S. farms, you can enjoy America's best without the inflated price tag at GoodRanchers.com. Save $25 on any box right now with Code Tucker. Plus, during GoodRanchers' presidential sale, you get to pick a free cut of meat for the next four years. That's free salmon, bacon, chicken breasts, or ground beef in
every box until 2028. Support American farms, ranches, and veterans with every purchase. $25 off and free meat for the next four years with Code Tucker at GoodRanchers.com. American Meat Delivered. Tucker says it best. The credit card companies are ripping Americans off and enough is enough. This is Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our legislation, the Credit Card Competition Act,
would help in the grip, Visa, and MasterCard have on us. Every time you use your credit card, they charge you a hidden fee called a swipe fee and they've been raising it without even telling you. This hurts consumers and every small business owner. In fact, American families are paying $1,100 in hidden swipe fees each year. The fees Visa and MasterCard charge Americans are the highest in the world, double candidates, and eight times more than Europe's. That's why I've
taken action, but I need your help to help get this passed. I'm asking you to call your senator today and demand they pass the Credit Card Competition Act. Paid for by the Merchants Payments Coalition, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee, www. MerchantsPaymentsCoalician.com.
I just can't get over the fact that the Biden administration, the US government, which you and I pay for, which is supposed to be defending their freedom of speech above all other freedoms, is encouraging its proxy government, the Ukrainian government, to seize or take over a media outlet. I mean, that's so... Why is that not illegal? Well, this has been part and parcel of our diplomacy for decades. But it's just criminal. Well, if you recall, when NATO's first use of military
hard power in its entire history, it was created in 1949. The first time it ever fired an offensive bullet was in 1995 and 1995. Remember it was. Well, one of the things we did when we bombed... When we bombed Yugoslavia was we took out its state media, it's state media propaganda organized, state media channels, state TV, it's state radio broadcaster. We bombed the headquarters of the media building and killed dozens of people in the process. Yes. And said that that was fair
game because they were a keynote in Yugoslavia's war effort. And so we killed their journalists in order to slow down their military... So the whole idea that there's like a free exchange of information or a battle of ideas in May that best idea win, which is really kind of the foundation of American civil society. I mean, that's what this whole project is based on. Yes. They don't mean it at all. In fact, they're moving in exactly the opposite direction.
It's something... Sorry, it sounds so shocked, but I am shocked. I hate this. It's something for 50, 60 years was very useful to us when other countries did not have robust propaganda or communications infrastructure themselves. And one of the reasons that Voice of America and Radio for Europe and Radio Liberty and all those were so effective at the time was because other countries didn't really have their own developed native programming in radio
or TV or print. And so the ability to project that with limited options allowed saturation of the CIA narrative in those regions. Well, I just... I mean, this is... I don't really any desire to talk about it, but I can't even control myself since my father was the director of the Voice of America and I grew up hearing about this every day at the dinner table.
The whole idea was at least the public facing idea, the publicly articulated idea was we're disseminating news and ideas, information, facts, and allowing the populations of these countries access to this and they can make up their own mind. It really was part of at least publicly and I'm very aware, you know, I know it was more complicated than that, but I really believed that. This was part of the battle of ideas and we were winning because we had better ideas.
Well, we allowed freedom of speech because we were winning. And fair. And this is the issue now, which is everything changed in 2014 in terms of our free speech diplomacy toolkit. We set up a swarm army of pro-free speech and Geo civil society institutions, university centers, journalists, legal groups in order to pressure and lobby all foreign countries around the world to create an open society for journalists so that those could be penetrated by US statecraft and intelligence.
And until the free and open internet started to backfire on the state department, that was the unequivocal position of the state. Because their idea is suck and nobody wants trans kids is the truth. And they don't want any more freaking rainbow flags. And maybe if you sold a product people liked like Marbles or Big Macs or Levi jeans or Freedom or like hot blonde girls or whatever you're selling. Maybe it's something that people actually want.
But if you're selling trainiism and you know gay race communism, nobody actually wants that. Nobody wants that. Right. Well, sorry. Right. Well, well, if support is not earned, it has to be installed. Exactly. Nice. And this is one of the, this is one of the of the great issues here, which is that it's these very free speech institutions that were capacity both by the state department that have all incorporated this censorship element. So we still do have a lot of free
speech diplomacy. Just two years ago, we sanctioned the government Iran, the government of Iran, for having the temerity to censor its own internet. This is so funny because you know, our own department of Homeland Security was doing the exact same thing to censor Americans to us to us. You know, so I mean, technically the United States should be kicked off the dollar for,
you know, for for doing, you know, exactly what we accuse foreign countries of doing. But we selectively promote either free speech or censorship depending on what's most advantageous for political control in any particular country. So for example, if Bolsonaro were to have rose, you know, rose to back to power in Brazil, have no doubt about it. You know, free speech would be back on the menu. And Bolsonaro would be accused of censorship, you know, over, you know,
J-walking, you know, on a random street corner. And we would be pumping up through NGOs and university centers and journalists on payroll. We'd be pumping $100 million into, into Brazil's free speech economy in order to create anti-Bulls and RO sentiment. That's right. But, you know, one of the things beginning, and I come back to this Brazil case. I said, one last time, one of the things I've learned from you over the past couple of years,
I've learned a lot from you. But one big picture idea that I didn't fully appreciate until I listened to you carefully was that our foreign policy drives our domestic policy. There's no such thing as domestic policy. Exactly. Every time I didn't understand, I grew up in a world where there was the foreign policy and like, you're over there on most of that, or wherever, maybe that's good for America, you don't even think about it. We're
fighting the Soviets. It's not a problem because we are an island of freedom here in the United States. And your reporting and analysis suggests exactly what you just said. There is no domestic policy. Everything that happens in this country is an outgrowth of function of our management of the world. Yes. There's no such thing as domestic policy because every country's domestic policy is another country's foreign policy. Whatever you do in the United States or whatever any foreign country,
a foreign country wants to change its labor laws. Well, guess what? That impacts the bottom line of US corporations who employ labor pools there. A foreign country wants to nationalize its graphite industry. Well, guess what? Now America can't make pencils. Everything that every internal policy of every other country on earth impacts the bottom line of some US national champion. Now, how the State Department defines national interest is essentially the College of Corporations
and Financial Firms that are US national champions. So, for example, if something happened, if Georgia or Azerbaijan does some of the impacts the bottom line of Exxon Mobil or Chevron or Halle Burton, that becomes a State Department priority in order to protect US national interest against this nationalization law that's happening in Georgia or Azerbaijan. And it's the same thing with every industry. And so, I do want to get back to this sort of exporting the First Amendment
concept that was such a big part of American statecraft. I think there's almost no better example of this than what happened with the State Department's Global Engagement Center, which is the main censorship artery of the US State Department. It also works with a lot of a million of these censorship NGOs and the USAID and this whole network. It was set up by Rick Stangle. And Rick Stangle, you know, what you say, his job was to export the First Amendment former managing editor
of Time Magazine. And it's when Donald Trump was elected in 2016. You know, the guy whose job was to export the First Amendment wrote an op-ed, I believe in the Washington Post, actually calling for an end to the First Amendment, that it needs to mirror that what Europe and other countries have interest. And then he wrote a book making the same case. Right. Right. But again, this is the guy who was the Under Secretary of Public Affairs. This is a very evil man, Rick Stangle.
Well, the point that I'm trying to make here is the free speech absolutist who was in charge of US government projection of free speech. All it took was one election for the entire diplomacy architecture that, you know, that this principle of free speech was based on to get completely
bottomed out. All it took was Donald Trump getting elected for, you know, arguably 200 years of of a First Amendment principle in 70 years of this principle of exporting the First Amendment to be entirely discarded because it was leading to the wrong kinds of people being elected. Free speech on the internet was blamed for the loss of the Philippine selection by the State
Department in 2016. It was blamed for the events of Brexit. This is why the US State Department funds so many London-based NGOs and university centers and influence operations to stop Nigel Farage in the Brexit movement. It was blamed for the rise of Trump in 2016. It was blamed for
the rise of Bolsonaro. It was blamed for the rise of Modi in India. In country after country, the free and open internet unfiltered alternative news, the rise of citizen journalists, the rise of citizens in those countries who have larger voices than CIA-backed media, than USAID-funded media, than State Department-funded media has meant that the State Department has lost control of those countries. What happened was, after 2016, the technology and the networks were established to be
able to add a new toolkit to American diplomacy, which is diplomacy by censorship. We have formal government programs at the State Department dedicated to gang foreign countries to pass domestic censorship laws to stop the rise of right-wing populist parties in those countries. I'm going to say that again, we have formal government programs at the State Department whose job is to lobby foreign countries and pressure foreign countries to pass censorship laws to stop the rise of domestic
populist groups. You have truckers in America whose income tax is going to pay foreign governments to censor their citizens. This is the sort of schizophrenia right now of a matter of. We're becoming the Soviet Union, which exported poison around the world for all those years. I really felt like the United States was the borrower against that, but whether that's true or not, I don't know. I'm trying to reassess what is true now is we're doing what they did. We're sowing chaos
and tyranny around the world. It's like I am so heartbroken to see this. Well, it's amazing you say that because I someone who is sort of present at creation in terms of watching this all get established and spending my whole life monitoring it and chronically it,
they were very aware of that when they were setting this up. When I say they, I mean, NATO, the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, after the 2016 election and after Brexit, and they began this whole consensus building quest about how to get all the relevant stakeholders
from the government, from the private sector, from civil society, from the media to all come together and create this whole society censorship coalition, whole society counter misinformation coalition, technically they caught, but they were very aware of what they were doing was exactly what they accused Russia and China of doing intensely aware. There was much, much hand-ringing in the beginning of this in late 2016, early 2017, that we need to be extremely careful as we are establishing
this infrastructure, that it does not appear to be what Russia and China are doing. That Russia and China have a, what they said was effectively, Russia and China don't have the problem that we have. They don't have rising populist movements in their countries that are opposed to the state institutions that are opposed to the state priorities that are winning political power. How do Russia and China solve this problem of domestic populist insurgency? Well, they use, I'm not checking
myself, giving their citizens political power. In other words, yes, yes. They should be. Do they ever stop and just ask, since when is it okay for the people in charge of a government to ban populism? I don't understand. When do we all agree that populism is bad? I thought the whole system was fundamentally a populist system. The country belongs to its citizens. I thought that
was the whole deal. I can answer that because it's basically doctrine. There's been a redefinition of democracy from meaning the consensus of individuals to meaning the consensus of institutions. This is a very clever, slight-of-hand reframing trick that they played after the 2016 election in the US and they were setting this up. They're playing with revolution here. They've lost their legitimacy. I'm not going to try to overthrow the US government. I'm 55. I'm not going to do
that. At some point, someone's going to try to do that and it's going to be hard to see whether they're not justified in doing that because it's not legitimate. Their legitimacy comes from the consent of the government. That's our system. When they no longer have the consent of the government, they're not legitimate, period. All I care about is freedom of speech on the internet. But if you have no freedom of speech, it's not a legitimate country.
There's a lot to get to on all of this that I think is maybe actually picking up what we were talking about with when they were setting this all up. I think it actually elegantly dovetails with the point that you just made. When they were setting this up, they said, Russia and China don't have this problem. We will have a PR nightmare, a crisis of legitimacy, if we simulate exactly what Russia and China do, which is top-down government control.
What they did is they came up with a concept called the whole society framework that would, in order to astroturf the appearance of a bottom-up organic censorship industry, that the government would simply fund and intermediate and direct and pressure. This whole society concept is that the government is not the censor. It is simply the quarterback of the censorship ecosystem. It is not like Russia and China and the sense that the Russian
Federation says this media channel is banned. Instead, it would be the American government paying to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, all the different censorship ecosystem players and exploiting that leverage to have that outcome arrive semi-organically. They were very careful in establishing it according to this idea that what we will do is we will be able to essentially have plausible deniability, but even though we are funding it and we are directing it and we
are pressuring everyone to join this censorship coalition. This is how you had tens of millions of dollars from the US State Department funding the private sector pop-up censorship mercenary firms, funding the civil society institutions, the universities, the censorship activists, the NGOs, the nonprofits, the researchers, and also on the media side and all these USAID funded media outlets, all pushing for censorship. There is an elegant structure to it, which is that the government
pays the civil society institutions to do essentially CIA work against our own citizens. This is why there are so many CIA analysts at the censorship universities, the censorship labs, they will call them disinfo labs at 60 plus US universities all funded by the US government. They do, and I assume on cable television too, they are everywhere on all the channels. DHS actually on boards, media organizations into its counter disinformation work. Again, because media is the fourth quadrant
in the whole society framework. It's government, private sector, civil society, media, all aligned like a magnet to create the censorship outcomes so that there's no holes in the Titanic. No one can resist it, no one can stop it. This is the prop, and it was so effective until Elon Musk essentially burst that bubble, and until they went a little bit too far with the disinformation government's board. Finally, a certain faction within the Republican Party woke up and was able
to exert some pressure through the House and Jim Jordan in November 2022. But getting back to this point about populism and what this whole counter disinformation, the censorship whole society network
does is they did a clever reframing. This is really cute. If you run a Boolean search on Google right now and you look at what places like the Atlanta Council and Brookings and the National Endowment for Democracy were all saying in the months after Trump's election in 2016, they were making the argument that maybe democracy was a mistake because it leads to outcomes like before they doubled down on it. There was a brief window where they said, you know what?
Actually, democracy leads to outcomes like Donald Trump and Brexit. And at the time, NATO, its biggest fear was free speech on the internet. In early 2017, NATO periodicals were saying the biggest threat to NATO is not a hostile foreign attack from Russia. They would come to eat these words five years later. They argued conventional warfare is over. The biggest threat to NATO is free speech on the internet because it's allowing the rise of
Marine Le Pen in France. It's allowing the rise of Mateo Sardinian Italy. It's allowing the rise of the box party in Spain, AFD in Germany. So we would have Brexit, Grexit, Italy, Brexit, Spags, the entire EU would come undone, which meant NATO's commercial arm comes undone, which means NATO comes undone, which means there's no enforcement arm for the IMF and the World Bank. So it would be like the ending scene from Fight Club where the credit card companies all crash down just because
you're allowed to speak your mind on the internet. This is so sick! If you've got good taste in hats, sweatshirts and t-shirts and a good sense of humor, you probably know of Old Row. They're everywhere. We're happy to partner with them to launch an Oero Line. Check out our store at TuckerCarlson.com. Highly recommend.
You need parts O'Reilly Auto Parts as parts. Need them fast? We've got fast. No matter what you need, we have thousands of professional parts people doing their part to make sure you have it. Product availability. Just one part that makes O'Reilly stand apart. The professional parts people. So they had this sort of crisis of, well, what do we do about it? Democracy is the problem.
They said, well, the problem is our entire diplomatic toolkit. Everything that the CIA does, everything the State Department does, everything USA does, everything that the Pentagon civil affairs does is all under this rubric of promoting democracy. This is how we topple foreign governments. We only have two predicates for toppling a government. One of them is aggression. The other one is repression. So if they are aggressing against the foreign country, we get to be
the world's policeman. We get to topple them for their military activity. But if we can't nail them on that, we can always get them on repression. We can say they're repressing their own people. So we need to bring democracy there. And this is the lion's share of what we did in Belarus. This is what we did in Moscow from 2010 to 2020. This is what we did in all these other countries. And I'm not even
arguing normatively about whether that's right or wrong. But you have to understand that free speech on the internet is the collateral damage of this proxy war. But here's how they rescue democracy. They said, we can't, okay, we need to stick with democracy even though we don't like its outcomes.
Because we take too long to turn the Titanic. All of our clack, cloaked dagger, black oper, black ops, you know, plausibly deniable toppling of governments worldwide, all in the name of democracy, all the NGOs we fund, all the civil society activists, all the media institutions, all democracy, democracy. So we need to simply, instead of getting rid of this concept of champion democracy, we need to redefine what democracy is. We need to make it not about the consensus of
individuals, how people vote, but make it about the consensus of institutions. And we will simply define democratic institutions as anyone who supports the US foreign policy establishment and its transatlantic partners in the UK. So in the United States, that would mean redefining a system of government from one in which a majority of 350 million people believe something to one in which a group of what would it be 100,000 people? Yeah, about that. Yeah, maybe
100,000 people, probably a third of whom I know. In other words, it's like, it just takes, they just took all the power from the American population and awarded it to themselves. Yes. And this clever rhetorical sleight of hand allows unspeakable powers that Americans have no idea about. I'll give you one example. So I said it's all about institutions now.
And you know, if you want to watch a funny clip, I posted this on my ex account recently, the burger and institute where Reed Hoffman is a board member and they were involved in this whole transition integrity project, domestic color revolution blueprint for stopping Trump from getting from being installed as president, even if he won the electoral college and they contemplated using black lives matter as a street muscle. And the whole thing was run by a
senior Pentagon official with a CIA blue badge. And they have, you know, that conference in 2019, the title of it was how elections, how elections, erode the democratic process, how elections are a threat to democracy. And because they were moving to this concept that it, that the blobs control over the political and commercial ecosystem of a country cannot be left to the people.
If we define democracy to be about democratic institutions, then the popular will of the people can still be categorized as a threat to democracy, which would still, that, therefore still allow the funding of the billions of dollars worldwide that we have deployed as capital for this. And I'll give you a great example of this. The National Science Foundation is probably the the main funding artery for most of the censorship ecosystem in the United States. Now this
comes from million places. Wait, though, what? I know. It sounds crazy, but listen. The National Science Foundation is the civilian arm of DARPA. It is, and it has been, for those who aren't from DC, we explain what DARPA is. DARPA is the Pentagon's brain. DARPA is the reason that we have the internet, you know, DARPA, the internet started as a military technology to be able to send and receive information digitally because the Pentagon manages,
that's the largest employer in the United States. Pentagon manages the American Empire, after World War II, we had this yawning empire stretching from here to Latin America, to Europe, under the Marshall Plan, and all the way out to the Philippines and Asia. We had this worldwide empire. We had to manage all these counterinsurgency threats, all the domestic
populations that were opposed to US hegemony over their own lands. And so the Pentagon had to be extremely versed in all the regions, understand what was happening politically, what was happening culturally. And so the Pentagon farmed out to US universities. This is a part of why so much of US universities, so much work is funded by the Defense Department and is funded by the National
Science Foundation. It's civilian, civilian arm. In fact, the National Science Foundation is the leading subsidizer of all, it's the leading source of funding for all higher education funds. I mean, like people think we have a private, you know, higher education market. We don't. It's
subsidized by the US government. And that is a quid pro quo. But through DOD, through DOD and through the National Science Foundation, which is the civilian, which is, but the National Science Foundation and even the story of the internet, again, it was created by the US military and it was turned over to the National Science Foundation and that's where the dual
use comes in. When the military, you know, the military developed the cell phone, the military developed GPS, you know, the military developed most of the technology at the R&D level that we now live under. In fact, the military developed all the internet anonymity software in order to help Pentagon and CIA and State Department backed political groups, be able to orchestrate regime change, you know, the VPNs, the tour network and then encrypted chat. All these things were Pentagon
projects before they became dual use, just like the internet became dual use. It was a military project, but then it became then the civilian commercial architecture was built on top of it. But the National Science Foundation has two major domestic censorship programs. And in the charter documents establishing one of them in 2021, when, you know, in February 2021, right when by, you know, the month after Biden took office, this is a, this is a $40 million program. And in the charter
document, it says that the purposes to stop misinformation about Democrat institutions. And they, and one of the Democratic institutions they define is the media. So understand this. This is the Pentagon civilian arm funding $40 million worth of censorship explicitly, exclusively censorship institutions to stop Americans from delegitimizing the media to stop Americans from undermining trust in media. If North Korea did this, we would pass sanctions on them. If Iran did this, we would pass
sanctions on them. This is because establishment media and again, politically aligned media with the blob has to be propped up as a buffer to drown out the voices of populace. So the, so the strategy here is twofold. Turning up the knobs of the blobs propaganda channels and turning down the knobs of anyone who opposes that because you can win two ways. You can win, you know, three ways you win an fair fight where you can win by super saturating your own media voice.
Or you can win by default because the opposition political party, the opposition political movement is not allowed. This is why the US State Department after 2016 established in like 140 countries now, these censorship programs in the name of countering disinformation in the name of media literacy in the name of digital resilience. They have all these branding terms for it. Because they perceive this Eldorado gold mine of of a new method for for total political control over
a region, which is winning by default by winning by censorship. A lot of times people don't believe state department propaganda. They don't believe CIA propaganda. And so no matter how much money you pump into the region, no matter five billion dollars, Victorian Newland bragged about being pumped into Ukraine and civil society ahead of the Maidan protests, it still did not penetrate Eastern Ukraine, which broke away with in the Donbass. It still did not penetrate Crimea, who voted shortly after
to join the Russian Federation in a democratic vote. So they from their perspective, funding propaganda was not enough. We need to kill the ability to surface alternative ideas, because then they can't even make a counter-argument. Even if they don't believe the propaganda, there's simply no other choice in the room. You don't get access to the other ideas. You don't get access to the other data points or news events that might undermine public trust in the state
departments, preferred narrative. This is where malinformation came from. Misdissimile information. You may have heard that phrase. Misinformation is something that is false, but you know, it was an innocent mistake. Disinformation is this wrong, but you did on purpose. Malinformation is it's right, but it still undermines public faith and confidence and something that's more important. This is why, for example, you had the censorship of COVID in the name of mal...
Vanning people from telling the truth. Yes. So how are you not like just full blown unsatans team at that point? You're not allowing your own citizens to tell the truth. You're forcing lies at the point of a gun. This is literally what the federal government's partners pressured, and exploiting government pressure and threatening them with crisis PR,
if they allowed true statements about COVID-19 to be articulated. This came out in the Twitter files, for example, where you had entities like the Byrality project who were telling Yol Roth and Jay Gaudi, the former Twitter 1.0 censorship team, that you need to censor self-reported vaccine adverse events, because even if these things are true, they still undermine public faith and confidence in the efficacy of vaccines. They might increase vaccine hesitancy once people realize
it can hurt them like they don't want to take it. Right. And part of the issue is, is their initial solution to this was fact checkers. But the problem is, and trying to get legitimacy for censorship because fact checkers identify something is wrong, but the problem is fact checkers are slow. Fact checkers have limited influence on certain platforms, and so you can't hire enough fact checkers. And also, a lot of times the fact checkers can't prove something's wrong.
You're citing CDC data. You're citing a widely reported mainstream media event, but you can still get it banned under the category of malinformation because it still undermines public faith and trust in a critical narrative. So it's sort of this censorship mercenary ecosystem
created to protect noble lies, but noble lies at home and also noble lies abroad. So this is why I come back to the US State Department, and maybe this is a good time to introduce the telegram issue here, which is that you had this strange situation where the government of France arrested Pavel. And it took everyone by surprise, and this is a major, major act which has major
implications for US platforms. The fact is, is if Pavel is liable for every act of speech, criminally liable, every act of speech on his platform, there's no reason that the head of rumble, the head of X, the head of YouTube, everybody can't be hauled in for 20 years the moment, they step foot in paris. But they're all dying prison for letting people criticize their governments. Like, right, it is a major diplomatic event. It impacts US national champions. It impacts US
citizens. The US embassy in France, it's job. The only reason it's there is to protect US international interests, US citizens and US corporations from hostile foreign laws in France, hostile foreign actions by France. And given how critical telegram is to the US militarily, to the US on state craft grounds, to the US on intelligence grounds again, as we speak in dozens of countries, telegram is the main artery of the CIA for for cultivating political
resistance movements. And so the impact on the United States is absolutely massive of doing this. And again, as we discussed, the United States has funded Ukraine with about almost 300 billion dollars. And Ukraine's military intelligence chiefs say that they need to get control over telegrams back end to know whether or not the Russians are in control of it. And to get control essentially over its front end content moderation policies to ban Russian propaganda channels.
Now mind you, this comes just two weeks after the FBI raided the homes of Scott Ritter and other journalists simply for appearing on Russia today. He had his hard drive sees, his phone, his phone seized. Other people had the paintings in their own in their own houses seized by the FBI, not arrested by the way, no charges against them simply for appearing on a Russian propaganda
channel, a Russian state TV channel. So these are American citizens living in America who simply appeared on a channel from from Russia that had their homes raided their electronics seized. And even their their paintings in their own homes seized if they thought a Russian painter may have painted the picture here in the United States just two weeks ago. How was that legal? Well, technically they're not facing charges. But the idea was is because they have overtized
to a Russian propaganda outlet, they may have covert ties. And so the so the FBI now basically, you know, has them in the spider web. But understand this makes me want to go on RT every single day of the year just to make the point not because I for any other reason then to make the point of an American citizen, I can have any political opinion I want and I can speak to anyone I want.
But does anyone any other media outlet see this as kind of the end of America when people are raided by the FBI for having political opinions? Well, it's funny you say that because I this is really what started my own journey, which was that
I'm not a foreign policy zealot. I'm I if if if the gun were taken off of my head and an apology and restitution made for for the the destruction of the free and open internet, I might consider whether or not it is in US interests to fund the war in Ukraine to, you know, to pursue the seizure Asia to do these things. I don't know. I don't know. I see the arguments on both sides of it. But the problem is the fact that they have destroyed so many lives, the fact that so much pursuing
pursuing this in my own free speech rights has caused me so much. But I have the same response that you do, which is that well, because you told me that I can't talk about this, I will not stop talking about this until they enter it. That's they they broken to my private text account. The NSA did to keep me from talking to Putin and then I just said, I don't care what it takes. I'm going to Moscow to see Putin took me two years, but they really hardened my resolve beyond like
any point of recent like I was going period. And I think that's the healthy response. You can I'm an American citizen. I was born here. You cannot. You are not allowed. It's illegal for you to trample my god-given speech rights. So how do I to cut your cell phone bill in half every single month? That's probably pretty high. Have you checked it recently? Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile want you to believe that you have to have something called unlimited data. And maybe you're in the
small percentage that do need unlimited data, whatever that is. But for most people, you do not need unlimited data. And you certainly shouldn't be forced to pay for it. That's for pure talk comes in. Pure talk only charges you for the data that you want. How about that? If you walked into an ice cream parlor and they said you could only buy 11 cones and you said I just want one, you probably wouldn't go back. Would you? No. You go to the place that told you what you want.
Talk, text, and five gigs of data on pure talk is 25 bucks a month. How much is five gigs? Well, you can browse the internet for 135 hours. You can stream a thousand songs. You can watch 10 hours of video. So it's a lot actually. So stop overpaying for data. You never use and switch to pure talk. An American is most dependable 5G network 25 bucks a month. Your talk is proudly veteran led supports American jobs with their whole customer service team
right here in the United States. Everyone speaks English. They're Americans. No off-shoreing. The average family saves almost a grand year, a thousand dollars a year. No contract, no cancellation fees, a 30 day money back guarantee pure talk makes switching very, very easy. Just go to puretalk.com slash Tucker and you will save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalkoneward.com slash Tucker to switch your cell phone service to a company you can be proud to do business with only by what you need. Well, this is the actual crux of our counterinsurgency paradox, which is that we have two things that we do for political control in the region. One of them is counterterrorism.
If we, the military sets in on a country, if we say there's terrorists there, but if there's no counterterrorism, we still have a doctrine called counterinsurgency, which is managing the rise of opposition political parties in a country and using potentially sometimes kinetic or hard power or drone striking people. The problem with counterinsurgency doctrine is a critical component of the country does not believe the US installed government is legitimate. So they are
organizing a political movement to rise to power instead. We call that a political insurgency. The issue is we want to get them stabilized. We want to have them have nothing and be happy. When people have grievances, this is what gives rise to this whole insurgent problem.
But the problem is encounter insurgency is in order to get legitimacy in the government, you need to take out the insurgents, but every time you take out an insurgent, you create ten new ones because all the bystanders who didn't have a dog in the fight, who maybe believed what the US government propaganda was saying, just saw their cousin get taken out at the wedding and said, so this is the problem. This is also where the whole of society framework comes from. The whole
society framework comes from coin. It comes from counterintelligence. We have a doctrine with encounter insurgency called whole of government whole society, which means every agency within the US government and then every institution in society. Coming back to this watch word institution, because this is the watch word of censor speak. This is we have propping up our institutions
and censoring anyone who opposes the consensus of institutions. But this whole society framework is how you stop the counter insurgency paradox, which is that you take one out ten new, you create ten new ones. If the pressure is coming not just from the US military. It's coming from how you
get a job in the country. So we onboard the private sector companies. They'll work either through formal partnerships with the State Department or Pentagon or they'll be funded or will be informal or will be or will be back channeled through something like the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is the Chamber of Commerce, the National and Damher for Democracy. And so we get the private sector companies. We get the universities, the NGOs, the activists, we get
all the cultural figures involved in the counter insurgency effort. And we get the media involved in it. This is where the censorship architecture was this is the what they agreed on. They literally borrowed it from the military doctrine for you know to solve this exactly this physiological response
that you're articulating right now. But getting back to this in the of this issue around the State Department and telegram is it is my contention that there's no way the French government would have done something so absolutely seismic in terms of its implications for the US military, for US intelligence and the US State Department, without walking next door down the Shons Alize and telling the US Embassy in France that they were going to do this. They had an ongoing investigation,
criminal investigation into Pauvel before this event took place. Macron even tweeted that this is part of an ongoing investigation. It is stock common practice for the US Embassy as we discussed
in the Czech Republic and Poland. Of course. It is stock common practice for the US Embassy in a region to to coordinate, to be notified, to be essentially a stakeholder in that country's conversations about whether or not you know prosecutions in the name of anti-corruption and the name of of anything will be done because the State Department effectively has a soft veto power. I mean you can remember getting back to prosecutions and control of the prosecutors. This was a
major scandal with Joe Biden. Joe Biden personally threatened the government of Ukraine. He said this in a council on foreign relations, you know, committee meeting if folks recall. Famous tape. Billion dollars. You want either you get rid of your prosecutor or you lose a billion dollars in you know, critical USAID to the region and you know, by Gali, you know, they fired the prosecutor. Control over the prosecutors is control over the politics. So the US Embassy in the region is
constantly back-channeling with the prosecutors. The idea that this event which is exactly what the State Department has been soft calling for for months now since you know, at least months I should note, if not arguably a few years, that this miraculous windfall because they don't have leverage against povl otherwise. You know, he's living in the UAE and they don't have the attack surface on telegram that they had on WhatsApp. They had this problem with WhatsApp a few years ago because WhatsApp
is the other, you know, major end-to-end encrypted chat. There's only two games in town in the encrypted chat space. WhatsApp and telegram. And I watch this happen with the Brazil story. The US State Department again, capacity built by essentially bribing through tens of millions of
dollars of flooded foreign assistance to all the censorship advocates in Brazil. This plan to stop the use of WhatsApp and telegram by Bolsonaro supporters in Brazil and in Modi supporters in India, places like the Atlanta Council, which has seven CIA directors on its board, gets annual funding every single year from the US State Department. All four branches of the US military as
well CIA cutouts like the National Diamond for Democracy. They held a conference in the summer of 2019 about the need to stop the use of WhatsApp and telegram in countries around the world, especially Brazil and India. Because we can't spy on them as effectively. Because the State Department had already censored social media, it already gotten social media censored in those countries. Bolsonaro supporters were effectively booted from Twitter 1.0, Facebook and YouTube after 2016.
They said to be this international movement of ideas between pro-Trump and pro-Bolson Harrow. So after the State Department set up this apparatus that got them censored from social media, they all ran to WhatsApp and telegram. So the State Department sort of created this encrypted chat problem. They could only talk in an uncensored way because the State Department already censored,
you know, their other main communication artery. And so, so WhatsApp and telegram were put in the crosshairs of this USAID program to kill, you know, and State, USAID State Department program to kill political support for Bolsonaro. And WhatsApp bent the knee within two and a half weeks because WhatsApp is very vulnerable. It is owned by Facebook. And Facebook is a major, major, has a major surface attack area for WhatsApp. If you recall, Jim Jordan subpoenaed these emails from Facebook,
a few months ago, the Facebook files. And in the Facebook files, it came out that Nick Clegg, the head of public policy, the head of the censorship terms of service at Facebook, did not want to cooperate with the Biden administration's demands to censor COVID, but urged his team to do so anyway because we have bigger fish to fry with the Biden administration. So we need to think creatively about ways to be receptive to their censorship demands.
Because Facebook is totally dependent on the USAID Department, the the the intelligent services and to some extent, the long range threat of the Pentagon to protect Facebook's data monopolies, to protect its advertising revenue, to protect it from laws like the EU Digital Markets Act and
Digital Services Act, which is so and this has come out as well. And I was at the State Department when I was called by nine Google lobbyists, you know, who told me that the the number one threat to Google's business model over the next five years is the EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. They need the protection of big daddy state department for favors for their profits. And so they play ball with the State Department censorship demands in order to preserve that.
But they are under the barrel of it. And people like Mark Zuckerberg right now are feeling like they're at their their their their which end because they gave the State Department and they gave the Biden administration everything they asked for in terms of censorship demands and they're still
being bullied by them. So just yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg wrote this letter to Chairman Jim Jordan where he came out in the strongest statement yet that you know that the Biden administration forced Facebook effectively to do the censorship that they that they pressure them strongly in that
and that the only reason they did these censorship actions, whether that was the joke, the the Hunter Biden laptop or whether that was the the COVID censorship censoring COVID origins censoring, you know, all issues around the COVID regime was because of pressure from the Biden administration. And not only that, he said that he regretted doing it and would end now has structures in place to stop Facebook from relenting from such government pressure in the first place.
And while this is great to hear Zuckerberg say it would have been a lot more useful four months ago when there was a Supreme Court case under deliberation where the Supreme Court effectively argued that there was there was an insufficient causal relationship between government
pressure and platform censorship action. So having a you know having a direct letter from Mark Zuckerberg unequivocally saying that it that there was as the head of Facebook would have been very useful to establish a Supreme Court president believing that aside in the sort of you know too little too late nature of that. This is something that had been percolating for for a while. Facebook in Mark Zuckerberg said that he regretted the censorship actions five months ago on Joe Rogan.
So it's no surprise that you know that Zuckerberg expressed that in writing. But the fact that he would do it to the Republican chairman of the House weaponization committee and the fact that he said he's no longer supporting Democrats in this election cycle signals to me that he fears the
blob now and and feels like the Harris administration's continuity of the Biden administration's pressure policies that there's no amount of flesh that he can give up as a pound to satiate their bloodlust and that he's turning if not towards Trump then towards something that's against that and trying to provide whatever moral support to that without making a direct contribution to the to the other side sort of maintaining the sort of patina of neutrality on financial and and messaging
grounds. He's not doing what Elon is doing by voicing explicit support. He's not you know providing financial support but he is he is very strongly motioning there because I think he thinks that the neutrality of a Biden of a Trump administration because Trump was neutral. Trump was completely neutral. Yeah. Frankly to the point where he should not have been. I mean you had American platforms who were censoring the American people who had voted for that government and you
and you know blasting away at our first amendment and doing so. You know the fact is is all the government you know how can you protect government how can the government protect platforms that are censoring the speech of Americans. This would be like the State Department you know supporting Exxon mobile and overthrowing governments to get oil and gas for Exxon mobile while Exxon mobile was cutting half of Americans off at the pipe you know at the pump at a gas station if they
voted for you know Eisenhower and this is this is it's such an abuse. It's honestly the end of this sort of idea that this favors for favors relationship between big government and big
big corporations has a trickle down effect to help the welfare of the American people. This has always been the justification for the national champion policy at the State Department that when the big when big government when the Pentagon and State Department of CIA and USAID and the whole swarm of soft power institutions do favors for Exxon mobile or Microsoft or Walmart or Pepsi then that means cheaper retail products for us. We have the export markets because we control that
government. We have the natural resources so we have cheap gas middle class living but this has completely inverted that because it's big government teaming up with big corporations specifically to deprive Americans of access to those platforms but again it's to protect the institutions
against the individuals. It's to protect this you know this this constellation of coistered foreign policy institutions and they're in their international agenda installed at a regional level on every plot of dirt on earth from being opposed by people who might vote against them organically in a free and open information market. What happens to Poblderov? It's unclear what kind of pressure may be mounted to set him free. There have been suggestions
that potentially the UAE may take some steps on on confirmed. The one player in the room who could exert enough pressure to set Pobl free is unfortunately potentially one of the players who may be implicated in his arrest in the first place. Again this comes back to the US Embassy in France which is why I believe that questions need to be asked by the House Foreign Affairs Committee
to ambassador Denise Bauer. Were there previous communications, previous emails, previous meetings, previous dialogue with French intelligence, French law enforcement or members of the French government? And when I say were there meetings or communications or dialogue, I don't just mean directly
by the US Embassy. I also mean through the US Embassy's back channels which is that many times this is done directly by the US Embassy but many times it's done by a back channel which is that instead of the US Embassy talking with French law enforcement directly a back channel someone from a civil
society institution funded by the State Department like an in Atlantic Town Council type organization or a former member of the State Department has these conversations does this lobbying, does this coordination and then reports the State Department for updates on the conversations about the the anti-corruption prosecution and the State Department provides guidance to the back channel
and the back channel continues the negotiations of pressure. And so the sweep has to be total here because the implications of the US Embassy either coordinating or at the very least approving this are our seismic because again a telegram's critical military intelligence role in countering
Russia and state craft role in everything that the State Department does because again if Russia does have a back end access to telegram whether they cracked it through their cyber hackers or whether Pauvel had some secret agreement that means every rent a riot revolution that the CIA does using
telegram all over the world is also being you know secretly monitored by the Russians and maybe that's why it was unsuccessful in Belarus maybe that's why it was unsuccessful with Alexei Navalny in Russia and they do make you know points about the fact that you know Russian military uses it
freely over half of Russia uses it and you know they point to questions around around the funding in order to make that argument so you do have these US interests but you also have French interests again I don't really have evidence I mean the US funded the creation of signal
it doesn't mean right and tons of people use signal right do they have evidence of this I mean Pauvel jar of left Russia in 2014 in his account and I think this is true he felt like he had to leave he didn't want to leave he's Russian right but the Putin administration was trying to control
telegram and he famously gave the finger to Putin on camera and left and took citizenship in other countries so like do they they as someone who's been accused of being a Russian asset a million times what I don't speak Russian and of course I'm not even that interested in Russia I'm sensitive to
that to that slander and I just want to know like do they have actual evidence that Putin has a backdoor to telegram I think sounds like like all lie to me but well they argue there would be no other reason for the Russian military to use it you know in such an unfettered fashion for for
you know official Russian military documents to you know to advocate the use of telegram of course that would be another reason which is it secure right they well if you read CIA media on this again be appointing to what radio free Europe wrote two weeks after your interview with Pauvel it was
that things may have well telegram for Europe is disgusting let me just say having grown up around it I'm just shocked by what it's become it's disgusting and they should be ashamed of themselves well radio for Europe was lauding you know telegram from 2014 to 2020 what they argue is that
something may have changed beginning in 2021 with a new round of funding I believe a debt round a large dollar figure debt round that was raised and they argue that they may have been Russian investors in that and so there may have been some payoff and so because of that Russia only
stock because for two years they were pursuing banning telegram from from Russia but then they they stopped it and at the time that was considered a major free speech victory by the United States and by the State Department they applauded the NGO pressure on Russia and the threat of sanctions
on Russia for if they went ahead and banned telegram but the fact that they were lented and then ubiquitously used telegram actually telegram usage in Russia massively surged after the ban there's only about 10% of Russians who used it before the ban and now it's over 50%
and so they argue between the funding between the fact that they're losing in all these places where they use telegram now and that that you know Russia maybe maybe came to it and the fact that there was that the ban that the attempted ban was dropped and then a massive surge in usage afterwards can only mean that Russia you know began to be pro telegram because of a secret deal between them. So in other words Ukraine is losing a land war against a country with a hundred million more people
because Pavlov Derov has some secret arrangement with Putin. I mean this is the kind of fantastical childish thinking that makes empires fall actually. I mean the total inability to deal with reality to assess your own shortcomings to be honest about anything as it pertains to yourself to be honest about yourself and how much you suck those are fatal weaknesses in people ending countries and it I grieve to see the US government fall into that kind of self-indulgent
fantasy. Right but think about the amazing windfall that just befell the CIA. They've had no leverage against Pavlov this entire time and yet the entire Russian military architecture is built on telegram. All high level Russian military and political officials the internal workings of Russian statecraft and deliberations all happen on telegram and there have there's been no window into that
because of Pavlov's belief and free speech. So now if Pavlov cracks under interrogation if he cracks under pressure suddenly all communications of all Russian citizens and all Russian military officials and all Russian diplomats that were taking place on telegram for the past five years are now in the hands of the CIA. So this is in a one I would just torture him to death. I mean like why not just like just drop the pretence and just like we're North Korea now with slightly
better infrastructure slightly and like stop pretending because that's what this is. They're like torturing a man and in the process stripping us of our god-given speech rights and our right to privacy that they're always crowing about but only when it pertains to abortion. I mean this is so immoral what we're participating in. Does anybody does like even occur to all the creeps on the internet the Atlantic County out of the entertainment. All the people who think this is great does
it occur to them that like they're no better than North Korea in this situation. Well I think from the Ukrainian perspective they say our people are dying we're being massacred by the Russians and so free speech has to be a casualty of you know of this war and so and religious freedom and the Russian Orthodox Church and you know the freedom of like priest to celebrate the U
Chris like they're in jail now. So it's like but a certain point like what do you think anyone in Ukraine looks over to Washington and says you know you promised us this was a good idea where they they've lost at least 600,000 Ukrainians they've lost the right to their land their land can now be bought by foreign corporations they just made that change and it will be and like all of that is because they follow the advice of Washington do you think they think that. Well it doesn't matter
what the people of Ukraine think they're not like no they're not a lot of elections. You're right. I can't vote their way out of it. There's no there's no elections and mind you you know that you can look everyone listening right now can look up something called the red lines memo from from the Ukraine crisis media group which is basically conglomerate of you know all these US funded
NGOs and civil society institutions in Ukraine. The and they sent a so called the so called red lines memo to Zelensky when he took office and they threatened Zelensky in that letter that if he took any of the below actions on security policy on energy policy on media policy on cultural policy
seven or eight different buckets of of internal policies that Zelensky might pursue that if he crossed any of the red lines in terms of restoring use of the Russian language on Ukrainian TV or you know interfering with the privatization of NAFTA gas and things like this that if he crossed
those red any of the red lines for the policy issues articulated by this US constellation you know this US NGO which is an umbrella for all these other state department NGOs that Ukraine would face immediate political destabilization if if any of those policies were enacted basically
the same rent of riots that were that were deployed by the US State Department and the central intelligence agency and to some extent the Pentagon in the 2014 Maidan protests would be redeployed against Zelensky if he decided to chart an independent course for the Ukrainian people that he would be run out of office the same way you know his predecessor Yanukovych was by the same forces if he did something that was in the will of the Ukrainian people but oppose the US State Department.
This is so grotesque. I just want to pause now and ask you anyone who's followed this conversation to this point finds it as probably as compelling as I do so for people who want I never do this but in your case it's I want people to read what you write where's the best place to follow you much more
closely than just your appearances here. On X at Mike Ben cyber all one word at Mike Ben cyber you know I'm prolific I believe in this I understand what is you know probably going to happen to me at some point but I again I my my dog in this fight is not changing US foreign policy to change US foreign policy let others decide what to do in Ukraine what to do all over the world.
I did not I could I can understand both sides of the issue I can understand the sort of anti-imperialist these are human rights violations you know we should not be toppling democratically elected governments I can also understand that it's a big bad world out there and if we don't do it
somebody else will and we need capacities in place to do that it's a complicated issue the problem is is we don't have a democracy when when our entire political structure is about hearts and minds of the people that's what democracy is hearts and minds of the people are determined by the
information ecosystem freedom of speech and so if you don't have the freedom of speech to be able influence hearts and minds and the hearts and minds to be able to give rise to to a free and fair election well then who's and can who you don't have a democracy you have you have a military
hunter effectively and and you know it's the point that you made before that the legitimacy all falls out and so all I care about is free speech on the internet and so what sounds like what you care about is America you care about the country that you live in yes right and to that
point I want to make another sort of note here which is that I'm not coming out making a facial allegation that it's that the United States was the driving force behind povles arrest I believe that it is highly unlikely that they were not coordinating or encouraging it and I believe
that at the very least there was approval and approval is a sort of light standard that's a little bit less damning because all it means is that the US did not was notified but did not apply counter pressure well sure but I mean you could also say and I would say having seen it a million
times in my long life when foreign country particularly an ally like France does something we disagree with we can issue a note of protest state department could say we you know we disapprove of that we support human rights including the right to speech and the right to privacy etc etc and we
didn't do that right now we can threaten to cut off aid we can threaten to cut off contracts to French companies are just probably disapprove I mean it's France is an ally if we if the president has got out or Tony Blinken or the US ambassador to France and just said we're against
this that would be a lot and everyone right now go to the twitter page of the US ambassador to France on X there's no public statements about it there's been no statement by the state department no statement by the US embassy in France when an American citizen called Gonzalo Lira was killed by the
Ukrainian government died in prison for criticizing the Ukrainian government a government that we supporting control in the name of democracy and freedom the US State Department said nothing right the Biden administration said nothing they approved of course but again they're behind
this in so many cases that it seems highly unlikely especially given given how amazing a windfall this is to the United States foreign policy establishment on this but there's a sort of two related points I want to make about France here which is that France does have its own
independent reasons for doing this which is that France's whole financial empire is dependent on Africa they have you know France still has a sort of semi-colonial empire 14 countries in Africa you know you basically you know use French currency in our
you know San and Gal code of our West Africa mostly yes and France also derives the lion's share of its own energy resources and they have had a big problem in the past so the French the famous French nuclear program yes nuclear energy program which is I think the biggest in the world
per yes seventy yes seventy five percent of France's energy comes from nuclear and that comes from Niger that comes from French speaking African country the uranium exactly exactly so three out of every four light bulbs in France are you know are turned on by the uranium you know
effectively in Niger in a few other places and the the French lost control of Niger to Russia just last year the other was a there was a military coup as there was in Mali in several other places where it was a military coup if not orchestrated backstopped by the Russian military
in these in these countries one after another you've had four or five French colonies effectively fall to Russian military activity in Africa and so they've lost control over their their access in Niger for example they had to close down their embassy they all of their all the French troops
they which had their largest presence in Africa were all evicted they've they lost all of the soft power influence you know over these countries and in these countries the the Africans are burning French flags and raising Russian flags in fact you know many of these African countries are
now cutting off diplomatic ties with Ukraine because of how close their affiliation with Russia is because of Russian military competence and activity in Africa France is losing the ability to keep the lights on yeah so and it should be noted however that Russia doing this because under
Macron France has been jumping up and down about the Ukraine war and pretending to be a meaningful part of NATO which they are not and just sort of pretending that they still have a meaningful empire everyone cares anyone cares at all what they think and they've annoyed Russia to the point where
I think this is payback right but Russian the Russian military is built on telegram everything they do probably not the only that's not necessarily public telegram channels but the but the private the private version with the end-end encryption and the anonymous for the the ability to aggregate
everybody you know in a in a Russian private military contractor into into a common telegram channel only telegram has that capacity no other you know they can't post this on Facebook you're on the and they're not going to use Facebook owned CIA intermediate WhatsApp all they have
is telegram for that so if if French intelligence is able to get povled to sing under questioning or interrogation or threats suspending the rest of his life in prison France may be able to you know finally have a chance to to retake the colonies that were lost to Russia okay let me just
say though I would much rather be monitored by the Russian military by the Israelis by any foreign government than I would by my own government because I live here first of all my government has no right as a I think a statutory matter to monitor me but also the implications being monitored
by foreign government as an American are not as big a deal as they are when I'm monitored by my government do you see them saying no absolutely so this is well actually there's a great point along this which gets right to the French story in this intersection between US and French interests
US and French shared military intelligence and diplomatic and economic interests in in arresting povled and finally getting the leverage they have craved for so long to be able to both control count telegrams content moderation practice to ban all Russian propaganda channels which are
infecting the minds of everyone from Ukraine to Belarus to you know to sub-Saharan Africa but also the you know the ability to get this back end access to for you know to to read every Russian text message effectively there there's a great example this in terms of blowback on Americans
so we've talked about this this group the Atlanta council we know which bills itself as as NATO's think tank it is again a lot of people don't even know seven CIA directors are still alive let alone all clustered together on the board of directors of a you know of an NG a NATO think tank
but it gets annual funding from the Pentagon the State Department and CIA cutouts like like the National Network Democracy as well as USAID there are 11 different federal government agencies who all provide federal government government funding every single year to what is effectively the
civilian influence arm of NATO now in March 2018 the Atlanta council published a set of white papers called Democrat Defense Against Disinformation and in the in the March 2018 version of it the cover photo again this is funded by the United States Pentagon the United States Department of
United States Intelligence Service conduits the front page of this memo called the Democrat Defense Against Disinformation which called for this whole society playbook about how how the government could organize civil society censorship from the civil society censorship from
the private sector side censorship advocacy and media organizations the cover of the memo of the memo was a giant network map a network narrative map of the of the French election because at the time there was some wickie leaks had published on the called the McCrone leaks which were these
sensitive politically embarrassing you know emails involving McCrone when he was neck and neck in the race against marine lapen in 2018 and the front page of it you know had in red all these narrative network maps of of French citizens and Russians but there were two big green network
nodes uh that were highlighted at the at the front of the memo and one of them was a big network node saying wickie leaks the other one was a big network node saying jackpasobic only just you understand what's going on here wickie leaks had published these McCrone leaks and jackpasobic
at the time was this large you know us based us citizen social media influencer who was one of the first and most aggressive to popularize the distribution of these McCrone leaks on social media and that was considered an attack on democracy by effectively the Pentagon the state department
the CIA NATO they were not targeting Russians they were not targeting French they were targeting a US citizen for amplifying now publicly available documents that might undermine political support for NATO's preferred political puppet in France by telling the truth by publishing true documents
yeah it was no that's exactly right sort of saying there was no allegation it wasn't like the hundred by laptop in the first weeks where this isn't real no one contested the fact these were real these were real we just weren't allowed to see them because you can't know the truth because it
might make you harder to control well this is the issue is these this is a US citizen this is a US funded institution gets millions of dollars every year it has seven CIA directors on its board the army funds it the navy funds at the Air Force funds it the USA funds it the state department
and in the crosshairs of the cover page of the memo is a US citizen for doing what that wasn't even a US event it was an American citizen publishing about a election in a galaxy far far away how much is it going to take if we colonize Mars and there's an election on Mars
can the central intelligence agency organize the censorship of an American citizen because the CIA's preferred puppet for the you know electoral race on Mars you know is being undermined because of a social media post from someone living in rural Montana there's no end to this it's it there isn't
it's been ongoing you know much longer than I realized and I think that's part of the problem is that people who consider themselves non liberal or opponents of the Democratic Party have certainly considered myself that were the slowest to figure out that the DOD depending on the military
in the intelligence these particular CIA also law enforcement FBI DHS that they were um threats to the country and to us and they reflexively supported them and that's all a 49 year year old hangover from the church committee hearings in 1975 where it was like all the conservatives
are like oh shut up you're not patriotic but actually the left knew right away that what matters is the institutions that are armed guns matter guns matter more than anything and so you want to have the armed institutions on your side and use them to oppress your political opponents and they
did that and it took Republicans well they still have been figured out they're like you know check in the box on funding DOD to like you know more than any military in the history of the world to lose war after war for 80 years and they don't understand that they're signing their own death
warrant and the death warrant of American democracy it's like freaking inferior it must drive you crazy as a former federal employee you know what me you nailed it there what they are doing to populism is what they used to do to communism if you remember what actually you know started the
church committee hearings what gave it the political legitimacy to finally have its day in Congress was the fact that the CIA and the Pentagon and the FBI were all interfering in domestic politics yes and the democrats to stop the anti-war faction big way domestic political support for
you know if our anti-vietnam is what was killing the funding legitimacy for for the war in Vietnam and it was killing the political mandate and so you know there's we have this doctrine you know the four theaters of war we know the four domains of war this is this US army doctrine which
is you know there's the strategic the logistical sorry the strategic the tactical the logistical and the political four ways you can win or lose a war you know on the strategic side is you know the grand strategy of it on the tactical side it's you know who who are going to attack how
when the logistics is how do you get the supplies there how do you get the funding for it and the political is do you have political support at home to be able to fund the logistics to be able to do these particular tactics you know if you if the if the war is not popular at home you don't get the funding for all the logistics that you need you don't get approval for certain tactics that would be deemed human rights violations or war crimes and so you can you know the US military establishment
believes that we lost Vietnam you know it's a famous called you know Vietnam syndrome because we lost in the political domain this is why the the the US State Department and the CIA fund anti-war movements domestically within countries that we go to war with we pump up the anti-war voices
in the country the anti the anti-war parliamentarians who might be in control of that country's budget in order to undermine their own ability to capacity build the war and this is what's happened here you know this was this George H. W. Bush quote you know by God we kicked Vietnam syndrome when
he brought CNN you know on to military airplanes to you know to propagandaize how great the war was and this is why the media has been so intensely onboarded in all Pentagon operations you know since since they're still very unpopular they're extremely unpopular the the Iraq war
looking backward whatever the hell we tried to do in Syria whatever we did in Libya um the 20 years in Afghanistan those are all seen as failures by a huge percentage of the American population despite the relentless propaganda so that should really matter if the majority of the
public is against something we shouldn't do it because we were supposed to be in charge of the government well this is where I come back to doctrine when when you are a part of this apparatus you are you are now taught that what democracy means is the institutions the democratic institutions
the government institutions the NGO institutions the media institutions and and any private sector companies so it's really deep and important inside you said that about what a year ago you first said that I heard you say it about a year ago and it changed my thinking completely but this is
also because you know I'm hearing you react to how evil it all is yeah I'm so because no no no we actually no I'm glad you did because I think this is a useful point for the American public to understand which is that when you're in this thing it doesn't look like it does from the outside because the language of sensor speak is is a very unique one in the same way that Marxism you know sort of rose to some level of cultural mainstream because of a decade of incubation in universities
you know developing this esoteric jargon you have this sort of lego tower of abstractions and concepts that went the when it was finally rolled out to the public the public could have a sort of set of frameworks to rationalize and support it there is a thick lexicon of sensor speak that totally
takes the human element out of it so when you are a part of this censorship apparatus you don't really feel like you are censoring people I'll give you an example they don't refer to people who they censor as citizens or people they refer to them as cyber threat actors okay so when you
are when you are censoring when they kill them they don't say they kill them they liquidate them right right yes or neutralize yeah when you they don't refer to your tweets or your Facebook poster your YouTube video they call those incidents so yeah so because your opinions are a crime
right when when you capacity build with tens of millions of dollars US funded censorship mercenary firms you are not funding censorship you are building digital resilience you are engaging in a media literacy camp you said all girls running this because this is you're using the very feminine
language here it's it's it's quite egalitarian I would I would say there's it's it's a interesting blend in terms of the cast of characters but the one commonality is they are all vetted they are all financially dependent on the resources of the blob of this of the Pentagon the state department
USAID and in the related swarm army of NGOs who then trickle that down as I get back to for example the national science foundation is who's funding all the universities the Pentagon is funding you know countless censorship mercenary firms USAID again has these entire programs with thousands of
these you know censorship promoting media organizations censorship you know post flagging um you know disinformation experts and so you you enter this kind of cloistered world with its own language and there's also a sort of moral justification because these people have
unbelievable amounts of power over a kind of godlike feeling over the political ebbs and flows of every country on earth and yet you know they don't necessarily make very much to reflect what they you know what they do I mean think about the power that the director of the central intelligence
agency has and yet makes less than Tony Fauci makes less than a six year associate junior you know mid-level associate at a New York law firm and yet this person determines you know the rise and fall of you know virtually every you know every country on on earth or at least has
significant influence over it so the money networks are very important because it this has become a boonfield I call it I don't I call it the censorship industry because that's the most useful way to understand what the glue that keeps everything together
it is a censorship industrial complex but it is the industry that keeps the app or every all the cogs in the wheel going the private sectors make bank because they do government favors this is why Microsoft for example such a huge player in the you know in the censorship apparatus there
are huge private sector partner in the whole society network under the under the private sector banner because Microsoft is hugely dependent on foreign markets hugely dependent on the US state department to negotiate on their behalf to be able to stop foreign laws that might undermine
their you know that might undermine their profitability you know they have almost 10% of their of their you know profits coming from China so they will join these national dammit for democracy you know censorship ecosystems in 2018 when all this was at its sort of adolescent stage of getting
created and when the real concrete of the of the bricks was getting laid down while there's still some mortar that would be developed in 2019 2020 you know Microsoft created this protecting democracy program which became this major in house censorship incubator and they participate in all the DHS
censorship meetings all of the CIA cut out you know censorship meetings through the national down for democracy because Microsoft's financial interests are dependent on the government and they are putting a favor in the favor bank to the government by doing it and the government will
in turn reward them by telling that foreign government who whose political prospects are now protected because all their opposition is censored to do favors for Microsoft and this is what use this is why there's such a huge stakeholder apparatus and all this you know one of the four I've
talked about the national dammit for democracy many times here they have four cores that they call it you know the NDI this is the DNC branch of of you know this CIA cut out hunter Biden was on the chairman's advisory board Nina Jacobits was a part of it I mean just so you can understand the
pedagogy of this the international republican institute is the is the RNC branch fit Mitt Romney's on the board IRI John McCain's old group exactly started it ran up for 25 years and the third one is their union branch called the Solidarity Center so this is basically the CIA intermediary
CIA back channeling with unions because unions play a major role in the rent of rights you know in Belarus for example yes a very this is how you get workers without a lot to lose who you know a little bit of money goes a long way these are the people who are in control of how the trains work
you you can part of this playbook for destabilizing a country is you shut down all the instruments the government could use so you shut down the railroads you block the highways the hospital you know workers all all walk out the teachers from the teachers unions all walk out and so the
CIA has to have a back channel to that so that's the you know the Solidarity Center among other links is there but the fourth one the fourth of the core four is called the Center for International Private Enterprise and this is the US Chamber of Commerce commercial interests in the region
that the CIA is orchestrating a regime change operation in or is putting influence on the existing government and so this is a made it was a major event in the Republican Party when the US Chamber of Commerce turned against Trump the only parody that the Republican Party had against Democrats
for the past hundred years has been the fact that that the republic that while Democrats had the media Hollywood using in culture unions and to some extent finance Republicans had the war industry the energy industry and the Chamber of Commerce because the you know these Chamber of
Commerce companies preferred republicanism for its free market enterprise free enterprise and low low tax structure the problem is Trump sort of you know stepped on a on a rattlesnake with this idea of making America first and American nationalism to the aesthetic cut back on
American interventionalism you know American you know over you know constant democracy promotion abroad is the first present 40 years not to you know declare a new war effectively so you had all these Chamber of Commerce companies whose the lion's share of the revenues dependent on foreign markets
or whose supply chains are sourced in foreign countries and they need a big bad CIA they need a big bad state department they need a big bad USA and a big bad Pentagon if necessary and so Trump ism became a sort of threat to the bottom line of the US Chamber of Commerce and so the fat so I
come back to this because the commercial interests here are sort of driving what's happening at the intelligence and military and diplomatic policy level if that makes sense you know for example take Ukraine right Ukraine it was not just you know the overthrow of the government in 2014 there yes it
was a state department operation yes it was a you know USA funded CIA directed operation as well as with the the British government but who were the financial stakeholders why do they do it well the Ukrainian government had just rejected a US embassy IMF trade deal inside it with Russia they were
they were squeamish about privatizing NAFTA gas and the at the time the US College of Corporations these Chamber of Commerce companies that oil and gas companies that all made massive investments in the Ukrainian energy sphere because the long range plan was to bankrupt gas prom and take the
you know trillion dollar market that gas prom has into Europe cut them off and have NATO based energy companies take their market for them so and and the plan was beautiful if you if you kill gas prom first of all you have a national security bracket for doing it because if you kill gas prom there
goes the Russian military so now you know Russia's threat in Africa is neutralized uh you know Russia can't oppose the Pentagon in Syria and in other places so there's a lot of national security Pentagon reasons to pursue that but then you had the all these US companies ink all these deals between 2011 and 2013 with the Ukrainian energy sector Chevron spent a signed a 10 billion dollar deal with NAFTA gas which the state owned Ukrainian gas company Bereastmo was the largest private gas company
it was the feeder to to NAFTA gas Shell from from the United Kingdom you know it was Royal Dutch Shell but now it's basically Edward and London so Shell Shell also signed a matching 10 billion dollar deal with NAFTA gas the state-owned gas company Haliburton Dick Cheney's where he used to be you know CEO and and chairman of the board and also George Soros had a large equity share in Haliburton Haliburton
owns the oil and gas processing rights in in Ukraine all of these companies were invested in resources that were solely situated in the Donbass and in Crimea the Donbass in the mountains and Crimea offshore and then what happened after so we overthrown the government in 2014 because the the
Ukrainian government was not giving everything that the State Department wanted we thought we rested total control of it now all these people you know who had made these all these US corporations who made these investments make bank but then we don't expect this counter coup that happens
you know the basically just a few months afterwards when the Donbass broke away and and Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation and the whole thing was purportedly backstopped by the Russian military so you have tens of billions of dollars of investments by US oil and gas companies whose
investments all go to zero because now how does Boris Ma mine you know mine's shale in the Donbass how does NAFTA gas get the profits from you know from that mining if Russia controls the territory how how are you going to you know do offshore you know drill rigging in Crimea when Crimea belongs to
Russia so you have you have these commercial interests driving the State Department policy in the region when Victorian Newland in late 2013 gave that famous speech where she bragged about the five billion dollars that the US government had pumped into Ukraine civil society the very civil society
that were gone to overthrow the government just months later later when she gave that speech she was at a US embassy event being sponsored by Chevron and Exxon really yes yes you go to my ex-feet I got the picture and HD 4k blown up for everyone to see so again you have this relationship between
the commercial so it's not just that like you we have a rogue State Department we have a revolving door between big government and big corporations and the idea of putting American first America first in a world where those corporations are primarily multinational means that nationalism is a threat
to multinational corporate interests and so multinational corporate interests will sponsor the State Department activity and use the battering ram of the CIA the State Department the Pentagon and NATO to achieve those corporate interests so we have a much bigger problem here which is why I
call for reform because our whole financial ecosystem is actually bent on this and that's just the nature globalization I mean that was always going to happen if you thought it through from I mean why would it you know Brexit be seen as a threat to US interests I mean that's right okay we
could go on for hours but I want to end and we could actually do hours on this specific topic I want to end on the question of you on who I think is you know one of the most significant figures in modern history obviously he is but very much a current player a lot depends on
what he's doing now on the question of speech with X and and of course he's he's has an incredibly complex life where he's tied into all kinds of different things with all kinds of different companies that rely on government contracts etc etc but he's holding the line in in demonstrable ways
everyone I know who watched the you know Duraver S. this weekend first thought oh man you know who's next do you think that the blob you so vividly describe um can tolerate Elon Musk allowing the world's population to say what it thinks through the election and beyond and what implications
does this arrest have for him well it's a complicated issue because Elon is is very unique I wrote about this when he announced the acquisition before it even closed I wrote an article where I described how Elon is actually quite unique in this relative to other billionaire owners of social
media companies who folded the pressure and I cited a few reasons one is again the the strategy on this apart from prosecutions is whole of society contortion of the economics so what you do is to get Facebook to do what you want you you you offer carrots and you threaten sticks so if you do what we want you'll get you know bribed you'll get rewarded if you don't do what we want we'll bankrupt you and so they fastidiously organize the whole society so that pressure is applied from the private
sector pressures of so advertiser advertiser boycats USAID has a formal disinformation program focused on getting advertisers to cut off revenue to purveyor misinformation sites and purveyor's of misinformation
and I have seen they have this formally published and in fact my organization foundation for freedom online even published the formal disinformation primer in February 2021 one month after Biden took office where in a 97 page USAID disinformation program memo 31 times they mentioned the word
advertisers as being necessary to kill the revenue to any social media site or any social media account or any independent web page that that spreads misinformation so USAID is contorting the economics of the entire news industry in order to to get platforms to censor
less they go economically bankrupt and remember the US this is the major threat to Elon still to this day but particularly you know these advertiser boycats which crushed the ability this is why they had to turn to subscriptions and they had to make you know this eight dollar month 12 dollar
month type thing because of all the ad boycats and again USAID is a formal program to coordinate that in the whole society fashion they're even a game back to Elon's uniqueness so for a couple of things as a triple digit billionaire he may be more insulated from these kinds of whole society encirclement economic pressure tactics that someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey had tolerance for they were only double digit billionaires you know or Zuckerberg whereas as a triple
digit billionaire that may actually maybe robust enough to resist that. Getting back to this Mark Zuckerberg letter in 2019 Mark Zuckerberg was making public speeches saying that he thought censorship had gone too far on Facebook that was 2019 I remember but then he got hit with a
very interesting boycott that was called hashtag change the terms and it basically was economically coercing Facebook to change the terms of its terms of service effectively to ban Trump supporters and Brexit supporters and anyone in Europe who is supporting a right wing populist party there
and Facebook lost 60 billion dollars in market cap in 48 hours under this boycott and so Facebook folded like a lawn chair and gave them everything they asked for because 60 billion was enough to break Zuckerberg's back at the same time there's who who paid for change the terms oh that's
how many hours you have it's it's it's it's it's it's about 60 seconds just bottom line for us I mean nominally it was the ADL and color of change under this kind of hate speech idea but it was joined by dozens of USAID funded US State Department funded NGOs civil society institutions
who were all creating the base of that so nominally you had these you know ADL color of change and it's about hate speech on social media but the the the buffering substructure for it were all these US government intermediaries and you have this issue where you know what they said was hate speech
but they as part of the change change the terms campaign anyone who criticized open borders was considered to be doing you know hate speech against Hispanics because of the you know the disproportionate impact on that anybody in you know Germany or France or anyone who you know
opposed anyone who was a part of this pro right wing populist NATO skeptical faction again this whole Brexit Brexit spexit it'll exit domino you know this that that all started because of the migrant crisis after we assassinated to doffy right and there was a giant you know influx of of migrants
you know into European countries and this gave rise to a right wing populist political opposition force and they were the ones who were challenging all the NATO preferred political candidates in those regions and so this was a this is a proxy attack on all the political enemies of the blob
but Elon is unique because the US State Department needs Elon or at least they need Elon's properties you have a povl problem here which is that all they don't they don't care about povl they care about telegram but to but to break into telegram to get access to the back end to be able to censor
you know the sort of front facing and spy right you need can you need control of the personnel because the policies of the platforms are person personnel is policy with Elon I don't think they want to he came out what they want is corporate regime change or him to play ball and I think they
allow the acquisition because they assume that he would play ball as everybody else who opposed them in the past did Jack Dorsey came out and said that it was a business decision you know why they censored Trump and that he was squeamish about it but you know they were under the gun of the
financial pressure that was the reason Mark Zuckerberg did all the censor Dorsey I can say was some authority I think really hated censoring Trump not because he loves Trump because I think Dorsey really was opposed to censorship like on a philosophical level right so I think they thought oh Elon's
talking a big game now but they all did and everyone folded until we just like the rest of them because he has a wide surface of attack you know as well Elon has Tesla Elon has SpaceX you know these are critical critical companies for US statecraft so you know space the US Pentagon and
television services state department is is hugely dependent on SpaceX for all lower satellites for all telecommunications I was at the state department rescuing stranded astronauts that's the thing is like actually yes no yep and Tesla is hugely important for to have a US national champion in the
green energy revolution the renewable battery technology is you know a huge part of the you know the you know of the US of US leadership in the climate change transition one of the reasons that they viewed him as a huge hero up until you know he became a free speech advocate and so
I mean I don't think I can say any better than one of the writers from the national dammit for democracy the the very CIA cut out that we've talked about you know dozens of times now in this and this dialogue which is that one of the writers in the national dammit for democracy
wrote just a few months ago that Elon Musk is a greater national security threat to the United States than Russia is a few months ago not as a post outbreak of the war this is in 24 and that that Elon is a greater threat to the United States and you know US national security than Russia because
his proximal impact on US politics and the in allowing you know opposition political movements to rise is you know will cause changes in US government that are more likely to make us lose the war on Russia than Russia itself it's the same thing NATO said in 2017 he said though we're in a pickle
because the US government is so dependent on Elon's properties and so you know basically called for a kind of death by a thousand paper cuts type strategy and this is what we're seeing we wrote this in public yes you can look it up this is a you know this is national you can I believe the
the author of it was a man named Dean Jackson as I current or former national endowment for democracy fellow he's a part of this this whole censorship industry apparatus that I've talked about that uh you know that is done through the whole society network and I can actually post the article
on my ex account if folks are interested uh right after this but yes arguing that they get but the national endowment for democracy is gets it's funding by the US government it is not only it is accountable to Congress but imagine a more anti-American belief than American citizens
shouldn't be allowed to talk American citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote or their vote shouldn't be allowed to count the American citizens shouldn't be allowed to choose their own leaders I mean imagine thinking something like that and imagining that you're an American right but
understand as soon as you accept the frame that democracy is about the institutions I know but wake the fuck up these people I mean come on I mean like I get it I understand I used to drink too much I'm very familiar with you know ways that we justify unjustified behavior to ourselves
but on some level like you're you're staying in the shower thinking wait in the name of democracy I'm preventing my fellow Americans from giving their opinions out loud or I don't think their votes should count like is there no they have no souls obviously right I'm sorry to get upset
it's just like so crazy I well the reason that I keep coming back to that is because I'm trying to arm everybody watching this and a language necessary to fight it well and you're you're spinning me into a frenzy um I'm sorry so let me just ask one last question okay do once again do you think
that X will stay open through the election stay open in the US yes but the State Department is coercing foreign governments to shut down X operations around the world until X sensors everyone the State Department wants answered take the EU Digital Services Act which I've been
screaming for years now has is the number one existential threat to Elon and to X this is a this is a law this is a you know this new just came into effect in the EU after years of pressure from NATO for the EU to to advance this which goes beyond the typical European hate speech laws and
creates a new sort of category for disinformation which requires all social media platforms to do disinformation compliance and the US censorship industry you know they they did a they did a conference there's a there's a there's a big 150 page sort of consensus memo that hundreds of these people
all sort of co-signed and then they did a launch event where they all talked about it on a live stream afterwards and in that live stream they they said that they would be in a full blown panic because of Elon Musk's losing losing X and Elon's policies getting rid of all the censorship
provisions they had because 2024 has more elections than any year in world history I think it's something like 65 elections are all happening all over the world so the State Department's control is you know is at risk in 65 to 85 different countries in the calendar year 2024 and they said that we'd be in full blown panic but we can panic responsibly because we have basically a trick up our sleeve and these are US censorship professionals many of them paid by the US government through grants
and what they are state of immigrants and and what they said is you know the trick up our sleeve is that we have the EU Digital Services Act and that will force Elon to rehire all the fired sensors and it will force him to basically re-staff the censorship apparatus unless he's he's going to lose
X's participation all of the EU because that imposes a 6% global revenue fine for anyone who doesn't comply the US come out and said they're currently non-compliant and the EU has a larger market than the US there's 500 million people in the EU it's more than the US if if X is kicked
out of the EU they are no longer a global platform it's it's absolutely existential and part of the requirements for that compliance is for the same disinformation experts and researchers to vet the flow of information to spot disinformation demanded take down and if X doesn't take it down
then they're kicked out of the EU so this is a massive massive lever of power over Elon and the only question is will the US State Department the only organ we have to defend US interests against Europe will they actually oppose it the problem is is your hearing me say they're the ones who
have been organizing these censorship provisions to be in with so the very the only people that we have to be able to defend us from the threat were the people who who organized in the first place so I don't I don't have time to ask you about the effect of all of this by administration censorship
on presidential race but let me just final question if Trump wins will you have any hand in helping the new administration roll back the censorship regime and returning us to some sort of constitutional foundation as a country my purpose in life is to do everything
I can to promote freedom of speech on the internet it's it's a very dear thing to me it has been since you know since I was since I was a kid and I don't consider myself a political person I know I had a political appointee spot I would be equally comfortable and in RFK style or I get it
sense of aircraft I think you're a one issue man I am I am but you need to understand these other issues to know what you're up against and to and this is you know I get a lot of pushback oh you know you're against the US military against the intelligence it says I'm not I'm not I'm calling
for reform so that this specific narrow new capacity that has become one of the biggest financial boon markets that we that that government grants do in such a short period of time it is new ish it's it's it's not a baby anymore but it's still in its adolescent stage this can be
rooted out it's not like you're rooting out you know the US war department you're the FB high right now 1789 so so you know my purpose is to pursue that to the best ability possible in whatever that means so I don't know you know what what role you know might might even be more
useful within the government or if it's more useful for me to simply publish what I publish provide the insights that I do and have my you know I have what I do simply be what I've been doing I don't know you know and and I'll I can answer that question when the fog of war has has lifted
more but you know I I'm not a political person I'm a one issue I'm a one issue guy on this and that touches political matters but I'm gonna be true to that purpose it would be nice to see a free speech czar since it is the first right enumerated in the bill of rights the free speech
ambassador yeah yeah my amazing amazing conversation and I'm sorry you got me so emotional about 11 times in the middle of it but thank you thanks Tucker thanks for listening Tucker Carlson show if you enjoyed it you can go to Tucker Carlson dot com to see everything that we have made the complete library Tucker Carlson dot com