Free speech on the internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the privatization of the internet in 1991… Free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA cutout-NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world overthrow ‘authoritarian governments,’ as they were billed . . . This plan worked magically from about 1991 to about 2014 when there began to be an about-face on internet freedom and its utility . . . The highwater mark of the internet free speech movement was the Arab Spring in 2011-2012 . . . after the coup in Ukraine, there was. . . the Crimea annexation vote in 2014, and when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO. They saw the fundamental nature of war change at that moment." . . .When Brexit happened in 2016, it was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t just have to worry about Central and Eastern Europe anymore, it was coming West – this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds . . . the very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended it charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. They went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it is not just Russian propaganda . . . https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/02/16/mike_benz_to_tucker_carlson_from_natos_perspective_the_entire_post-war_world_order_would_collapse_unless_they_censored_the_internet.html
Those are some excerpts from Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Mike Benz, a former State Department Official and the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online.
For a description of how the US government set up the “Election Integrity Project” to implement massive censorship during the 2020 election, see the video start at 41:30.
A key point from Benz is that “defending democracy” has been redefined. (See video starting at 47:10.) It is no longer about ensuring free and fair elections and making government responsible to voters. Now it has become about defending the “institutions of democracy”. Conveniently intel agencies, NGOs, Pentagon, Big Tech, legacy media, and other entities who are most responsible for censorship are now defined as the democratic institutions that must be defended at all cost. At the same time informed voters are now perceived as an existential “threat to democracy”.
From what I see, NATO is following a track similar to that of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The Communist revolutions were nominally about protecting workers from exploitation by evil capitalists. They soon morphed into protecting the Communist Party and government institutions, while workers endured bread lines and brutal repression. NATO has become the Warsaw Pact 2.0.
Yes, people voting the “wrong way” is an existential “threat to democracy”. After Brexit and the 2016 presidential election, the elites who run things have resolved to avoid future problems like that at all cost.
Informed voters are a Russia plot; ignorant voters who mindlessly repeat state-supported narratives are essential to national security.
Any information that contradicts the sacred narratives that have been crafted by the “democratic institutions” like the Pentagon, the intel agencies, Black Rock, Google, etc. must be ruthlessly suppressed as “Russian disinformation”. Democracy is at stake!
The German government, with full support of Washington, is moving to ban the largest opposition party.
Laws dating to US occupation that were intended to ban extremist groups like Azov are now being used to ban political parties who oppose military aid to Azov and its allies. Funny how that works . . .
Those weren’t Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms. They were just Russian patriotic citizens who sua sponte put on unmarked uniforms and took over a region.
No. My understanding is that Afd is considered “far right” because it wants less immigration, reduced spending to Ukraine, and it is skeptical of self-inflicted energy embargoes.
Azov is an ultranationalist paramilitary organization, not a political party. It portrays itself as a continuation of the UPA, which collaborated with the Germans in WW2 and was responsible for atrocities against Polish and Jewish civilians.
In response to growing support in the AfD in the polls, the German government has imposed Stasi levels of surveillance, and German media have launched propaganda campaigns against it based on leaked surveillance.
The current issue is that someone from Austria presented a plan to deport immigrants at a meeting where some members (not leaders) of the AfD attended. If only they had given a standing ovation for a veteran of the Waffen SS at an official party meeting, everything would be fine.
The AfD does the best in the former East Germany. It as if the people who are most familiar with the Soviet-backed one-party police state are the ones who are most suspicious of current efforts to establish a NATO-backed police state.
I would have no objection to NATO if it returned to the principles found in the preamble to the NATO charter instead of waging hybrid warfare against its own citizens and against other countries:
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
