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

UN General Assembly Adopts Controversial Cybercrime Treaty Amid Criticism Over Censorship and Surveillance Risks

Published on

 

 

By 

 

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Global cybercrime treaty faces scrutiny over human rights safeguards and potential misuse of cross-border powers.

As we expected, even though opponents have been warning that the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime needed to have a narrower scope, strong human rights safeguard and be more clearly defined in order to avoid abuse – the UN General Assembly has just adopted the documents, after five years of wrangling between various stakeholders.

It is now up to UN-member states to first sign, and then ratify the treaty that will come into force three months after the 40th country does that.

The UN bureaucracy is pleased with the development, hailing the convention as a “landmark” and “historic” global treaty that will improve cross-border cooperation against cybercrime and digital threats.

But critics have been saying that speech and human rights might fall victim to the treaty since various UN members treat human rights and privacy in vastly different ways – while the treaty now in a way “standardizes” law enforcement agencies’ investigative powers across borders.

Considerable emphasis has been put by some on how “authoritarian” countries might abuse this new tool meant to tackle online crime – but in reality, this concern applies to any country that ends up ratifying the treaty.

Another point of criticism has been that UN members individually already have laws that address the same issues, rendering the convention superfluous – unless it is to extend some of those authoritarian powers to the countries that don’t formally have them, and can’t outright pass them at home for political reasons.

Since the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution without a vote – after the text was previously agreed on by negotiators – it is not immediately clear how many countries might sign it next year, and ratify what would then become a legally binding document.

In the meanwhile, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres referred to the treaty as “a demonstration of multilateralism.”

Where opponents see potential for undemocratic law enforcement practices spilling over sovereign borders, UN representatives speak about “an unprecedented platform for cooperation” that will allow agencies to exchange evidence, create a safe cyberspace, and protect victims of crimes such as child sexual abuse, scams and money laundering.

And they claim all this will be achieved “while safeguarding human rights online.”

Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.


Thank you.
Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

The Spies Who Hate Us

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Jeffrey A Tucker Jeffrey A. Tucker  

Brownstone Institute has been tracking a little-known federal agency for years. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security created after 9-11. It is called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA. It was created in 2018 out of a 2017 executive order that seemed to make sense. It was a mandate to secure American digital infrastructure against foreign attack and infiltration.

And yet during the Covid year, it assumed three huge jobs. It was the agency responsible for dividing the workforce between essential and nonessential. It led the way on censorship efforts. And it handled election security for 2020 and 2022, which, if you understand the implications of that, should make you spit out your coffee upon learning.

More than any other agency, it became the operationally relevant government during this period. It was the agency that worked through third parties and packet-switching networking to take down your Facebook group. It worked through all kinds of intermediaries to keep a lid on Twitter. It managed LinkedIn, Instagram, and most of the other mainstream platforms in a way that made you feel like your opinions were too crazy to see the light of day.

The most astonishing court document just came out. It was unearthed in the course of litigation undertaken by America First Legal. It has no redaction. It is a reverse chronicle of most of what they did from February 2020 until last year. It is 500 pages long. The version available now takes an age to download, so we shrunk it and put it on fast view so you can see the entire thing.

What you discover is this. Everything that the intelligence agencies did not like during this period – doubting lockdowns, dismissing masking, questioning the vaccine, and so on – was targeted through a variety of cutouts among NGOs, universities, and private-sector fact-checkers. It was all labeled as Russian and Chinese propaganda so as to fit in with CISA’s mandate. Then it was throttled and taken down. It managed remarkable feats such as getting WhatsApp to stop allowing bulk sharing.

It gets crazier. CISA documented that it deprecated the study of Jay Bhattacharya from May 2020 that showed that Covid was far more widespread and less dangerous than the CDC was claiming, thus driving down the Infection Fatality Rate within the range of a bad flu. This was at a time when it was widely assumed to be the black death. CISA weighed in to say that the study was faulty and tore down posts about it.

The granularity of their work is shocking, naming Epoch Times, Unz.org, and a whole series of websites as disinformation, often with a crazy spin that identified them with Russian propaganda, white supremacy, terrorist activity, or some such. Reading through the document conjures up memories of Lenin and Stalin smearing the Kulaks or Hitler on the Jews. Everything that is contrary to government claims becomes foreign infiltration or insurrectionist or otherwise seditious.

It’s a very strange world these people inhabit. Over time, of course, the agency ended up demonizing much authentic science plus a majority of public opinion. And yet they stayed at it, fully convinced of the rightness of their cause and the justness of their methods. It seems never to have occurred to this agency that we have a First Amendment that is part of our laws. It never enters the discussion at all.

AFL summarizes the document as follows.

  • CISA’s Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF) relied on the Censorship Industrial Complex to inform its censorship of alleged foreign disinformation narratives regarding COVID-19.
  • Unelected bureaucrats at CISA weaponized the homeland security apparatus, including FEMA, to monitor COVID-19 speech dissenting from “expert” medical guidance, including President Trump’s comments about taking Hydroxychloroquine in 2020. Many of these “false” narratives later turned out to be true, calling into question the government’s ability to identify “misinformation,” regardless of its authority to do so.
  • To determine what was “foreign disinformation,” CISA relied on the Censorship Industrial Complex’s usual suspects (Atlantic Council DFR Lab, Media Matters, Stanford Internet Observatory) — even those discredited for erroneously attributing domestic content to foreign sources (Alliance for Securing Democracy). CISA even relied on foreign government authorities (EU vs. Disinfo) and foreign government-linked groups (CCDH, GDI) that advocated for the demonetization and deplatforming of individual Americans to monitor and target constitutionally protected speech by American citizens.

For years, this story of censorship has unfolded in shocking ways. This document among tens of thousands of pages is surely among the most incriminating. And discussing it is apparently still taboo because the Subcommittee report on Covid never once mentions CISA. Why might that be?

In the strange world of D.C., CISA might be considered untouchable because it was staffed out of the National Security Agency which itself is a spinoff of the Central Intelligence Agency. Thus does its activities generally fall under the category of classified. And its many functioning assets in the civilian sector are legally bound to keep their relationships and connections private.

Thank goodness at least one judge believed otherwise and forced the agency to cough it up.

Jeffrey A Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Trending

X