➡ The text raises concerns about the potential abuse of power by the military-industrial complex and their potential to influence political and democratic processes. It discusses issues around censorship by major platforms and the potential political bias within Big Tech companies, arguing that such practices undermine democracy and can even be likened to election rigging. It also explores allegations of false information spreading by these organisations, and criticises potential links between certain organisations and intelligence agencies. The text ends with a call for political non-interference in the democratic process and criticises actions from notable figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci.
➡ Dr. Anthony Fauci is believed to have used tax dollars to fund a less than standard Wuhan lab which is now perceived as a potential origin for COVID, with attempts to downplay or hide this revelation being seen as a form of biomedical authoritarianism.

In the councils of government. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

In his 1961 farewell address, president Dwight Eisenhower warned of, quote, the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex. Eisenhower feared that the size and power of the complex or cluster of government contractors and the Defense Department would, quote, endanger our liberties or democratic processes through, quote, domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money. He feared public policy would become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Eisenhower’s fears were well founded. Today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy. We’ve never had a situation where the major distribution networks for the country, for news, were told to step on a story or voluntarily stepped on a story of that consequence heading into a presidential election. I mean, you’d have to go back to the Pentagon Papers to see even an attempt in that direction.

And again, it was remarkable to me to see the non response from journalists who ought to care about this, because that could be your story next. Shutting down the ability of the New York Post to post content was an extraordinary escalation, and it was done at the behest of the government. There’s no doubt that deep state actors and Twitter files is pretty explicit here. Had prepped the battlefield not only for Twitter to take action, but Zuckerberg admitted that, yeah, they were warning us something like this was going to come.

The FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team and was like, hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that, so just be vigilant. We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

So it’s big government, big tech, big media. But also the in between many times is NGOs. These not for profits. These organizations out there. In some cases universities or think tanks on university or whatever you want to call them. Money gets funneled there. That gets put into place at big tech trying to influence them or somewhere else. Civil society organizations are supposed to watch the government, the news media is supposed to watch.

Both the tech platforms are supposed to have different interests from the government. But what we see in the censorship industrial complex is they’re all working together in what they call the shared endeavor. And so it’s a consolidation of power. That’s the model that they’re looking for. Well, I think we just have to come to terms with the fact that the big tech companies or social media companies are partisan leftist ideologues, and they’ve been lying about the reasons.

They’ve been quote, moderating content. They’ve been censoring content, not following a set of rules, but following government dictates and their own ideological predilections and political biases. But you can’t trust these big tech companies. They aren’t moderating content in any honest way. They’re either acting on behalf of the government, which is arguably illegal, at least on the government side, and to the degree they’re doing it without government input, it’s dishonestly being done.

That’s why we’ve sent letters to these folks trying to get information from some of these organizations like the Stanford Institute, but that’s this censorship industrial complex, or as I think even Jonathan Turley said he is a similar term. He said censorship by surrogate. So the government’s paying someone else, and they’re trying to influence these other organizations to censor Americans First Amendment free speech. One of the things that motivated me to run the United States Senate to get here, to pull this back, to fundamentally dismantle the administrative state, what’s happened is Congress has willingly ceded this authority of these faceless agencies.

We’ve got more and more power. I had heard from a source who had worked with Renee that Renee had talked about being in the CIA. But I didn’t report that because I didn’t have a second source until Schellenberger and I met up with Mike Benz of the foundation for Freedom Online, and he found a video of Alex Damos introducing her as having worked for the CIA. I’m really happy to announce for the first time that Renee de Resta will be joining us as our research.

Renee can wave. Renee? Yeah, let’s give her a hand. Yes. You may know Renee from such reports as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligences report on Russian interference. Renee has done a lot of writing and analytics. She has a computer science background like me. She is part of the Academic Unwashed with a computer science degree from a public university, but has gone out and worked for the CIA.

Now, when we did that report, she says that her only link to the CIA is that she was a fellow in her student years. So, okay, that’s where things stand as we are. I mean, the three pieces of information are those, right? But there are a lot of people in this world who move freely back and forth between intelligence agencies, the so called civil society organizations, the federal law enforcement, tech companies, and even media.

You’ll see people from the CIA all over Twitter. People from the NSA, the National Security Council, some of the key people who are actually characters in the Twitter files. We don’t identify them that way, but some of them are CIA veterans, right. In the same right we now see openly on channels like MSNBC and CNN every day. They’ve got contributors who were former FBI or CIA or NSC officials.

Sometimes they’re even anchors. Yeah, what’s interesting is that a lot of these so called non governmental organizations who are opposed to disinformation have been implicated in actually putting out false information to smear those the left doesn’t like, whether it be Roy Moore and Alabama or Trump and Republicans generally. This came out. They got busted doing it. And there was a story in The New York Times, they admitted it, and yet it somehow doesn’t cause anybody to reassess, for instance, new knowledge’s testimony about Russian bots in the Trump Russia investigation.

So here you have a company that’s been caught manufacturing a Russian bot scandal, and they have also given a report to the Senate on Russian bots in the 2016 election. And nobody makes that connection. Like, do we reassess any of that information? So in August 2020, students from the Stanford Internet Observatory were doing an internship with CISA, and they identified a massive gap in the capability of federal, state, and local governments to become aware of, to analyze, and to rapidly respond to myth and disinformation, both foreign and domestic, targeting the 2020 election.

Renee she was the research director of the company at the time this was going on, and yet she’s running the Election Integrity Partnership, and nobody thinks that’s weird. So, yeah, it’s stuff like that over and over again. One of the people who writes for my site, Racket, Andrew Lowenthal, he made the point. These people who are professing to be the leading experts on combating disinformation, in many cases, they have records of being agents of disinformation themselves, which should cause people to do a double take, but it doesn’t.

I don’t think people understood the extent of the election interference until the Twitter files. And to be clear, if you censor information about one candidate negative information while censoring another candidate who’s trying to get his message out, that is election rigging as surely as stuffing ballot boxes. I’m just going to say, well, even look, more recently, maybe it’d be nice if the government would just let we the people decide who we want to get elected, who we want in office, who we want representing us.

Because if you think about it, in 2016, the FBI got involved with it was the whole Dossier Russia thing that they were doing with President Trump in 2018. It was the Mueller investigation, the special counsel investigation. In 2020, it was the suppression of the laptop story that we were just talking about in 2022. It was 91 days before the midterm election. The FBI raged President Trump’s home, and here we are in 2024.

We’re still talking about just stay out of it. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. You, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute. When Anthony Fauci spoke big tech censored, you know, this material might be the most important material we found about the potential origins of COVID We now know that Dr.

Fauci gave our tax dollars to a lab in Wuhan, China, that wasn’t up to code. And we know the negative outcomes now. And so anybody that objected to this, anybody who stood up, know this sort of this biomedical authoritarianism that existed. They were deplatformed. Well, I mean, early on, it was easy to see why they were sensitive about it, because Judicial Watch obtained documents that showed almost immediately they were worried about what they were doing at that Wuhan Institute.

So I think it was all about covering his backside. .