How the Deep State is using the ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’ to crush free speech

The Censorship Industrial Complex, dominated by organizations often run by ex-CIA agents, is working around the First Amendment to suppress dissent and promote a one-world government

Author and reformed climate activist Michael Shellenberger has coined the term “Censorship Industrial Complex,” an apparent reference to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address in 1961, where the former Army General warned about the influence of the “military-industrial complex.”

In a recently published article, Dr. Joseph Mercola explored the Censorship Industrial Complex, how it works, and who some of the protagonists are. We will examine the following points regarding this nefarious network to understand how the censorship apparatus works:

A key figure: Renée DiResta
The Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project
The Council on Foreign Relations and the One World Government
NewsGuard and the “middleware” approach

A key figure: Renée DiResta

Renée DiResta is the research director of the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO). Mercola fittingly described the organization’s purpose: “[Founded] in June 2019,” the SIO “promote[s] internet censorship policies and conduct[s] real-time social media narrative monitoring.”

DiResta quickly climbed the career ladder despite being involved in a major election manipulation scandal. She previously worked for the CIA and is a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

DiResta is a prominent example of the connections between the intelligence agency and the censorship industry, but she is certainly not the only one. The organizations that are deciding what is deemed “misinformation” or “hate speech” (i.e., the Censorship Industrial Complex) are often run by former CIA agents. According to Shellenberger’s research, seven former CIA executives serve on the board of the Atlantic Council, an organization partnered with the SIO through several projects.

“The Chief Strategy Officer and the Director of Federal Programs at Graphika, another DiResta partner organization, are former CIA officials,” Shellenberger writes.

In 2018, DiResta organized a false flag online operation that influenced an Alabama Senate race. Before she worked at the SIO, DiResta was the research director at a small political consultant firm, New Knowledge LLC, which received $100,000 from Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, to help the Democrat candidate win the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. New Knowledge used that money to subscribe thousands of fake Russian bot accounts to Republican candidate Roy Moore’s social media campaign. Mainstream media reports at the time claimed Moore was “backed by Russia,” even though his “Russian backers” were fake accounts created by New Knowledge. Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, went on to win the race by a slim margin.

After the election, an internal report from New Knowledge, which detailed the Russian bot operation, was obtained by The New York Times. The report admits that: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”

This revelation gained national media attention and was so scandalous that even members of the Atlantic Council (an organization that now collaborates with DiResta) publicly criticized this egregious example of election interference by New Knowledge.

Shellenberger said the reason that DiResta was made “the leader of the Censorship Industrial Complex,” next to her intellect and articulateness, is that “[l]ike other American elites, DiResta believes that it is the role of people like her to control what information the public is allowed to consume, lest they elect a populist ogre like Donald Trump, decide not to get vaccinated, or don’t accept whatever happens to be mainstream liberal opinion on everything from climate change to transgenderism to the business dealings of the president[‘s] family.”

The Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project

The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) was founded only months before the 2020 U.S. presidential election “to defend our elections against those who seek to undermine them by exploiting weaknesses in the online information environment.”

Mike Benz, former State Department official in the Trump administration and executive director for the Foundation for Freedom Online, explained in a video that EIP was created as a “government cut-out,” a “private” organization that de facto acts as censorship arm for the things the government cannot censor because it lacks the legal authority to do so.

One of the “partners” of the EIP is DiResta’s SIO. Benz also notes that all of the EIP’s partners are at least partly funded by the government.

Elon this video goes over it in insta-PhD level detail. It shows exactly how DHS created the EIP censorship octopus. Condensed to 8 mins here: pic.twitter.com/l5EaxAIChD

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) November 7, 2023

In May 2020, a new organization with mostly the same “partners” as the EIP was created, the Virality Project (VP). The VP focused on censoring COVID-related content online, including factual information that “might promote vaccine hesitancy.”

READ: New ‘Twitter Files’ show gov’t-backed Stanford initiative told Big Tech to censor ‘true’ info about COVID jabs

A spokesperson from the SIO (one of the VP’s founding partners) claimed it “did not censor or ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects.” Perhaps the SIO did not censor content directly, but the VP that was founded by the SIO certainly did, as the Twitter Files released by Elon Musk have shown.

According to the Twitter Files published by journalist Matt Taibbi, the VP pressured social media platforms such as Twitter (now X) and TikTok to remove or flag online content. Posts flagged by VP included:

True information that could fuel “vaccine hesitancy”
Posts critical of vaccine passports
True testimonies of people experiencing blood clots after receiving COVID shots
People asking questions about possible adverse reactions from the jabs

The Council on Foreign Relations and the One World government

As mentioned above, DiResta, in addition to being a former CIA agent, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a think tank specialized in U.S. foreign policy. The globalist CFR is partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The CFR was founded in 1921 and has heavily influenced U.S. foreign policy ever since. Most CIA directors and U.S. secretaries of defense have been members of the Council. Mercola argues that the CFR’s ultimate goal “has been to bring about a totalitarian one world government, a New World Order (NWO) with global top-down rule.”

According to the Centre for Research on Globalization, James Warburg, the son of one of the CFR’s founders, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”

Moreover, CFR insider and former U.S. Navy Admiral Chester Ward stated the following in his 1975 book Kissinger on the Couch:

“[The CFR has as a goal] submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government … This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of its membership … In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’”

Mercola concludes that the Censorship Industrial Complex is part of the network that seeks to establish a one-world government.

“Those who oppose America First policies do so because they’re working on behalf of a network that seeks to eliminate nationalism in favor of a one-world government, and DiResta is part of that club,” he writes.

NewsGuard and the ‘middleware approach’

In another condensed video, Benz explains how the Censorship Industrial Complex is now using so-called “middleware” organizations like the news rating site NewsGuard to suppress dissent from the mainstream narratives.

The "Middleware" Plan To Restructure The Censorship Industry

1. Middleware = 'censorship as a service' orgs

2. Morphing from top-down to middle-out

3. Regs + middleware = disinfo compliance market pic.twitter.com/lDPqH72HrD

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) August 1, 2023

According to Benz, the Censorship Industrial Complex is anticipating a loss in the Missouri v. Biden Supreme Court case, which “threatens to ban all government coordination of domestic censorship with a few exceptions[.]”

To circumvent these possible legal restrictions, the government is propping up “intermediary censorship mercenary firms like NewsGuard.”

READ: Elon Musk slams leftist rating group NewsGuard as ‘scam’ that ‘should be disbanded immediately’

By funding these “private” organizations, the deep state government agencies can “effectively circumvent the First Amendment prohibitions on running a comparable thing out of the DHS [Department of Homeland Security].”

However, the idea that NewsGuard is somehow independent from the government is wholly divorced from reality. In 2021, the Department of Defense awarded NewsGuard $750,000 for its project “Misinformation Fingerprints,” which aims to combat what it calls “a catalogue of known hoaxes, falsehoods and misinformation narratives that are spreading online.”

Moreover, Benz notes that NewsGuard’s Advisory Board consists of “an all-star apex predator caste of the national security state,” including

retired Four-Star General Michael Hayden, who was formerly the head of the CIA and NSA,
Richard Stengel, former Undersecretary of State,
Tom Ridge, former head of the DHS,
and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former head of NATO.

By propping up “middleware” companies such as NewsGuard that are not technically part of the government, the Censorship Industrial Complex is able to work around possible First Amendment restrictions, as websites that receive a negative rating from NewsGuard will have reduced visibility on Big tech platforms and search engines. The negative rating by NewsGuard also provides a pretext for private Big Tech platforms to label outlets as spreaders of “misinformation” and censor them outright.

“There’s no clear solution to this threat, other than to continue pushing back against any and all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship,” Mercola writes in his conclusion. “To vocally object, to refuse using middleware like NewsGuard, and to boycott any company or organization that uses middleware or engages in censorship of any kind.”

Up Next

Danielle Smith warns Trudeau gov’t she’s going ahead with natural gas projects despite regulations

Don't Miss

Trudeau gov’t dept. suggests giving LGBT, minority journalists $45k annually to promote ‘diversity’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘Proud Feminist’ Justin Trudeau Distraught That Americans Didn’t Vote For ‘First Woman President’

Business / 46 mins ago

Argentina’s First Budget Surplus in 123 Years

MAiD / 1 hour ago

Saskatchewan seniors say they were offered euthanasia when faced with increased hospice costs

Business

Argentina’s First Budget Surplus in 123 Years

Published on December 11, 2024

Todayville

By Martin Armstrong

Argentina has posted its first budget surplus in 123 after President Javir Milei took office and demanded an abrupt halt to government spending. Governments worldwide should carefully take note.

Milei proudly announced:

“The deficit was the root of all our evils — without it, there’s no debt, no emission, no inflation. Today, we have a sustained fiscal surplus, free of default, for the first time in 123 years. This historic achievement came from the greatest adjustment in history and reducing monetary emission to zero. A year ago, a degenerate printed 13% of GDP to win an election, fueling inflation. Today, monetary emission is a thing of the past.”

Economic emissions should become a coined phrase as it is far more harmful than anything government is currently trying to conquer.

Argentina was forced to stop printing money back in 2022 after inflation surpassed 60% in July of that year, and their currency became utterly worthless. The central bank raised rates to nearly 70% to no avail as government continued borrowing. The problem with socialism is that they eventually run out of other people’s money. The government was spending over $6 million daily on social programs, but the poverty rate continued to rise, and around 57% of the working population could not find jobs. There were mass strikes since their money could not fund basic goods. Even if they could find employment, what incentive would the people have when the currency is worthless? Since they had no way to pay off their debt, the government simply continued to print more and devalued its own currency in the process.

Javir Milei was called a right-wing extremist for denouncing socialism and promising to curtail government spending and social programs. He understood that socialism COULD NOT WORK. It took President Javier Milei of Argentina a mere two months to push his nation into a surplus. The Economy Ministry declared that the government posted a $589 million surplus back in April, the first surplus in a decade. Milei referred to the government as “a criminal organization,” and recognized that the public sector needed to shrink as 341,477 people were on the government payroll when he took office.

Referred to as the “gnocchi” after the Italian pasta dish that is commonly served on the 29th of the month, the same day as payday, are the individuals in Argentina on the government payroll who do absolutely nothing. They were installed by politicians in exchange for favors. Critics claim he is firing at random, but the Milei Administration has assured the public that selecting those who will be laid off will be an “extremely surgical task, done so as not to make mistakes.”

Milei has already eliminated useless agencies such as the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labor, and Ministry of Social Development. In his words, Argentina is currently a poor country and cannot afford these departments that do absolutely nothing to improve the nation’s economic conditions. He has cut the Cabinet in half and no one has noticed a difference.

Milei removed price controls and devalued the currency by 54%. Transport and fuel subsidies were eliminated. It was noted that these measures would at first hurt PPP before the economy could begin to heal. Imagine inflation cooling in February at 276% — the situation was dire. The International Monetary Fund awarded Argentina a $44 billion credit program. The nation is beginning to stabilize very slowly, and it took decades of deteriorating economic conditions for someone to come in and clean house.

He has called his measures a form of “shock therapy” for Argentina’s economy. Milei agreed to devalue the nation’s peso from around 350 to 800 pesos per USD. He has eliminated quotas on imports and exports and removed the licensing that was difficult to obtain. There is a temporary rise in taxes for non-agricultural trade that brings it on par with industry standards. Transportation and energy subsidies have been eliminated.

Milei is the same man who stood before the crowd at Davos and criticized their glorification of socialism. “The main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism,” Milei said to a hostile crowd at Davos. “We’re here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world—rather they are the root cause.”

Those in charge want us to believe that capitalism equates to greed while collectivism is seen as a form of social justice but, of course, requires the money of others. Free enterprise is under constant attack, and Milei is one of the only world leaders fighting for its existence. “Social justice is not just. It doesn’t contribute to the general well-being,” Milei said to Davos, citing that socialism is “intrinsically unfair” and forces the state to attack the people for taxes. “Can any of us say that they voluntarily pay taxes?” he asked the crowd.

He was once called the Donald Trump of Argentina. We can hope that Donald Trump will take swift action to reduce government spending. DOGE appointee Elon Musk congratulated Argentina’s president when news of the budget surplus broke. Unfortunately, America is too far in the hole to recover by slashing programs or cutting government. It would be a massive step forward but our deficit has been permitted to run wild for too long to be tamed.

Business

Economics professor offers grossly misleading analysis of inequality in Canada

Published on December 11, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By: Philip Cross

Dalhousie economics professor Lars Osberg’s The Scandalous Rise of Inequality in Canada was published just in time to be eligible for the always hotly-contested title of worst Canadian economics book of the year.

Osberg’s central theme is that inequality in Canada has been steadily increasing and this poses a threat to economic growth, financial stability, social mobility, limiting climate change and even democracy—at times, it seems every imaginable problem is blamed on inequality. This makes it even more important to get the facts about inequality right.

The most misleading chapter in the book concerns top-income earners. Osberg claims that “the income share of the top 1 per cent… is the aspect of inequality that has changed the most in recent years.” However, the chapter on inequality at the top of the income distribution exclusively features data for its increase in the United States, driven by the outrageous success of technology firms such as Facebook, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Nvidia. Nowhere is the data for Canada cited, but in fact the 1 per cent’s share of income in Canada has fallen since 2007, which probably explains why Osberg avoided it.

The real problem with Canada’s high-income earners over the last two decades is not that they’re gobbling up more income at the expense of everyone else, but that we do not have enough of them. Nor do the top 1 per cent in Canada earn nearly as much as in the U.S. Pretending that incomes in Canada are as skewed as in the U.S. is another example of importing narratives without examining whether they are applicable here. This might be forgivable for the average person, but it’s scandalous and disingenuous for a professor specializing in income distribution.

Raising taxes on the richest 1 per cent has a “populist” appeal. However, former finance minister Bill Morneau wrote in his memoire Where To From Here: A Path to Canadian Prosperity that he came to “regret supporting the idea of a tax increase on the 1 percent” because “it began a narrative that made it difficult to have a constructive dialogue with the people prepared to invest in research and development to benefit the country… our proposal’s biggest impact was to reduce business confidence in us.” Before becoming the Trudeau government’s current finance minister, Chrystia Freeland acknowledged that “many of the ultra-high net-worth individuals flourishing in today’s global economy are admirable entrepreneurs, and we would all be poorer without them.”

Another practical consideration for Morneau was that “Canada’s personal income tax rates are not competitive with the U.S. where highly skilled labour is concerned.” Finally, Morneau acknowledged that taxing the rich in Canada will not raise much money, because “the number of taxpayers affected will be quite small… the math just doesn’t work.” I calculate that confiscating all of the income the 1 per cent earn above $200,000 would fund total government spending in Canada for a paltry 44.2 days.

Besides misrepresenting the importance of Canada’s 1 per cent, Osberg twice makes the patently false claim in his book that “income from capital… is roughly half of GDP in Canada.” Just last week, Statistics Canada’s estimated labour income’s share of GDP was 51.3 per cent while corporate profits garnered 26.0 per cent (including profits reaped by government-owned businesses through their monopolies on utilities, gambling and alcohol sales). Another 12.6 per cent of GDP was mixed income earned by farmers and small businesses, which StatsCan cannot disentangle between labour and capital. The final 10.2 per cent of GDP went to government taxes on production and imports, which clearly is not a return on capital. I would expect undergraduate economic students to have a better grasp of the distribution of GDP than Osberg demonstrates.

Among the many evils generated by inequality, Osberg cites democracy as “threatened by the increasing concentration of wealth and economic power in Canada.” Osberg must believe Justin Trudeau’s decade-long tenure as prime minister reflects the choice of our economic elites. If so, they have much to answer for; besides steadily-degrading Canada’s economic performance and international standing, Trudeau attacked these same elites by raising income taxes on upper incomes, increasing the capital gains tax, and undercutting the fortunes of the oil and gas industry on which much wealth relies. If our economic elite really controls government, it seems they made an incredibly bad choice for prime minister.