Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Shadowy US intelligence agency accused of funding efforts to suppress conservative media

Published

12 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

A new report suggests the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is using covert methods to suppress ‘conservative media’ in the United States. The NED, essentially a CIA cutout, also recently hired pro-Ukraine former U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland.

A new report from Redacted’s married couple Clayton and Natali Morris asks some serious questions about a CIA operation now headed by the “queen of regime change, Victoria Nuland” which they say is “censoring the news given to Americans.”

Their report touches on the long tradition of the CIA and its cutouts in funding popular culture, news, art, and entertainment as a “propaganda weapon” – which is used abroad, and at home in the West.

A shadowy agency known as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has now been shown to be exempt from explaining to Congress – or to anyone – precisely what it spends its $315 million annual budget on doing.

As Natali Morris explains, you have very good reason to care what the NED is doing – with your money.

“They do these secret things – government regime change –  and they don’t tell us about it. And it’s funded through the State Department,” she said.

The NED was set up under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to advance “The Democracy Program” abroad. So what’s the problem with changing regimes so they become more “democratic”?

As the New York Times reported in 1997, “The National Endowment for Democracy [was] created … to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades.”

The NYT report documents dozens of overseas operations in “enemy” nations such as China and across the former Soviet Union – but also in those of allies such as Italy, Portugal, France, and Northern Ireland.

Its “Democracy Program” seeks to program democracies in the West. Declassified reported in 2022 that over six years the NED had given over £2.6 million – over $3 million – to fund “pro-democracy” outlets in the U.K. This included the “intelligence group” Bellingcat.

In May 2023, Elon Musk spoke out about the shadowy group when he “accused Bellingcat of running psychological operations against the US public.” That is because they do, as Aaron Mate explained in this piece for The GrayZone.

“In a leaked email exchange, UK media personality Paul Mason gushed over Bellingcat’s role in receiving what he called ‘a steady stream of intel from Western agencies,’ thus allowing it to provide ‘intel service input by proxy,’” he wrote.

This is one example of how an NED-funded operation can seem “independent” – and function as a mouthpiece for Deep State propaganda.

NED funding extends beyond financing war propaganda for American consumption. It also includes the international U.K.-based newswire Reuters – as Declassified pointed out.

“Another UK recipient of NED funding is the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the corporate foundation of the global news company,” the report said.

What is more, due to a change in U.S. law, the NED is now legally permitted to target Americans at home. As Declassified further explained in its 2022 report, “John Kiriakou, a CIA officer from 1990 to 2004, told Declassified that recent changes in the law have widened the potential targets of US information operations.”

Kiriakou, who “served in the agency’s core Directorate of Operations,” continued, “In 2011, the US Congress changed the law that forbade the Executive Branch from [propagandizing] the American people or nationals of the other ‘Five Eyes’ countries – the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.”

Changes in U.S. law have meant that regime change operations have come home.

As Clayton and Natali Morris suggest, “The cultural Cold War has never gone away. It’s just shifted from target to target.” This was the conclusion of Frances Stonor Saunders in her book The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. Her book “presents … the shocking evidence that the CIA infiltrated every niche of the cultural sphere during the postwar years.”

This may seem a conspiracy theory too far. Yet it is not merely demonstrated by Saunders’ abundance of proof that “some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West became instruments of the American government” during the Cold War. There is an actual blueprint for doing exactly this, and it was published by the U.S. government itself over 70 years ago.

The CIA was created in 1947. One year later its power was mobilized in a new strategy published by George Kennan. Called “Organized Political Warfare”, this was a blueprint for the use of every mode of cultural production to be mustered in the promotion and defense of liberal democracy.

What this means is much of our culture since then has been funded by the CIA – and by its cutout, the NED – and is basically Deep State propaganda.

As Saunders’ book shows, “The CIA’s front organizations and the philanthropic foundations that channeled its money also organized conferences, mounted exhibitions, arranged concerts, and flew symphony orchestras around the world.”

U.S. and Western thought leaders, artists, critics, writers, and political theorists were “willingly or unwittingly” promoted by the CIA and its cutouts – like the NED.

“Many of the period’s foremost intellectuals and artists appear in the book: [leading liberal] Isaiah Berlin, [art critic] Clement Greenberg, [proto-neocon] Sidney Hook, [writer] Arthur Koestler, [political theorist and “godfather of neoconservatism”] Irving Kristol .. .George Orwell, [“artist”] Jackson Pollock, [British atheist] Bertrand Russell, [French atheist] Jean-Paul Sartre, [regime court historian] Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and [homosexualist poet] Stephen Spender, among others.”

Pollock’s awful “art,” along with that of Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning, has always been inexplicable from the viewpoint of beauty, craft, and meaning. That is because modern art was used as a “CIA weapon,” as “former CIA officials” admitted in this 1995 report from the U.K.’s Independent.

Saunders maintains, of course, that the manufacture of cultural propaganda did not end with the Cold War.

“The NED is the umbilical cord of gold that leads directly back to Washington,” she explained to Declassified.

“And by this I’m not only referring to official US government programs, but to the vast network of clandestine players that plan and enact its information warfare operations.”

The scandal reported by Redacted is that these covert methods, funded by U.S. taxpayers, are being used today on U.S. citizens themselves. Through its sponsorship of the Global Disinformation Index, the NED used arms-length cutouts to suppress criticism of “COVID-19” measures, labeling them and protests against abortion and alleged voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election as “misinformation.” Redacted shows evidence that “conservative media” in the U.S. generally is also being suppressed – thanks to NED-funded efforts.

What is more, the NED has secured a “sensitive” classification on its activities, and so neither has to report them to the public, nor disclose them at all.

As Natali Morris points out in her report on the NED and its covert propaganda war on Americans, “They just hired the queen of regime change, Victoria Nuland. They hired her in September – which means they’re hardly trying to hide that they’re evil.”

Nuland was formerly under-secretary of State, in a department which has oversight of both the CIA and its proxies such as the NED. She infamously appointed the regime-changed new government of Ukraine in a 2014 phone call to then U.S. Ambassador Christopher Pyatt.

She is married to arch-neocon Robert Kagan, whose brother Donald teaches at West Point, and whose sister-in-law Kimberly Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). The ISW, itself a common source for U.S. and U.K. war news, is, according to Responsible Statecraft, “Funded by important military contractors in America’s military industrial complex such as General Dynamics, DynCorps International, and CACI International, ISW is also a creation of the ‘Kagan industrial complex.’”

The leading agency of the CIA specializing in domestic “regime change” operations is now led by the woman who led regime change operations abroad.

The warning of Mike Benz, who worked in the last Trump State Department, also featured in Redacted’s report.

“Victoria Nuland is now at the CIA’s #1 cutout. The prime mover in the censorship industry: the NED.”

Natali Morris cited a November 18 report from Benz’s Foundation for Freedom Online which showed the NED does not publish any information on how it spends its annual $300 million federal budget.

As the report concluded, “[The NED] expects to operate in the dark and never be subject to transparency requirements ever again.”

Given its track record, its founding purpose and its current chief, Clayton and Natali Morris make a convincing case for ending the NED, hoping the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will consider doing so.

“They [the NED] are trying to censor information to the American people in order to enact regime change in places that they want. So these are just the projects we know about. What about the projects that we don’t?”

It is time the American people were told the truth, say the Morrises. 

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“The minister could order this dissident’s internet and phone services be cut off and require that decision remain secret”

Free speech advocates have warned that the Liberals’ cybersecurity bill would allow them to block any individual’s internet access by secret order.

During an October 30 Public Safety committee meeting in the House of Commons, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) counsel Josh Dehaas called for Liberals to rewrite Bill C-8, which would allow the government to secretly cut off Canadians access to the internet to mediate “any threat” to the telecommunications system.

“It is dangerous to civil liberties to allow the minister the power to cut off individual Canadians without proper due process and keep that secret,” Dehaas testified.

“Consider for example a protestor who the minister believes ‘may’ engage in a distributed denial of service attack, which is a common form of civil disobedience employed by political activists,” he warned.

“The minister could order this dissident’s internet and phone services be cut off and require that decision remain secret,” Dehaas continued, adding that the legislation does not require the government to obtain a warrant.

In response, Liberal MP Marianne Dandurand claimed that the legislation is aimed to protect the government form cyberattacks, not to limit freedom of speech. However, Dehaas pointed out that the vague phrasing of the legislation allows Liberals to censor Canadians to counter “any threat” to the telecommunications system.

Bill C-8, which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and contains a provision in which the federal government could stop “any specified person” from accessing the internet.

The federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop “unprecedented cyber-threats.”

The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be “necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

“Experts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,” the Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote in a recent press release.

Similarly, Canada’s own intelligence commissioner has warned that the bill, if passed as is, could potentially be unconstitutional, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a person’s sensitive information.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

Published on

logo

By

Lawmakers pressed Meta and Google to explain how far White House outreach went in shaping their censorship decisions.

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”
He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.
“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”
He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”
Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.
“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”
He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.
But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”
Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.”
Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance.
He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor.
“We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.”
Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.”
These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.”
Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands.
Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.”
Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently.
The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy.
But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.”
Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.”
He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.”
Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules.
This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X