The left’s inversion of democracy is the same as the CIA’s

What’s happened with the rise of the web censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself, backed covertly by the US State Department. It can happen here. Op-ed.

By Ezequiel Doiny, INN                                                   27 February 2024

Ezequiel Doiny

On February 25, 2023 Arutz 7 reported “Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak shared his plan for how to force the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to resign. In an interview with Galei Tzahal (IDF Radio) Barak said ‘We need 30 thousand citizens to encircle the Knesset in tents for three weeks, day and night. When the state is shut down – Netanyahu will realize that his time is up and that there is no trust in him.'”

The Left led by Ehud Barak and cohorts claims they want to force Netanyahu to resign to “defend democracy”. But how can they justify forcing the resignation of a democratically elected Netanyahu by using the term to “defend democracy”?

What this describes Is Military Rule, the Inversion of Democracy.

In the interview below censorship expert Mike Benz, executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, explains to Tucker Carlson how the left changed the definition of democracy to justify this.

He describes how the CIA started “color revolutions” around the World to remove democratically elected governments that did not align with the State Department’s agenda.

Watch the Mike Benz interview with Tucker Carlson to understand the Kaplan Street’s attack on Israel’s democracy.

Below are some parts of the interview:

Benz: “What I’m describing Is Military Rule…It’s the inversion of Democracy.”

Benz: “…one of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of Internet freedom and its switch from Internet freedom to Internet censorship. Because free speech on the Internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the Internet in 1991, we quickly discovered through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department, and our intelligence services that people were using the Internet to congregate on blogs and forums.

“And free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and our sort of CIA cutout ngo blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow ‘authoritarian governments’, as they were sort of billed. Essentially, the Internet free speech allowed kind of Instant regime change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishment’s State Department agenda.

“…Google is a great example of this. Google began as a DARPA (The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,ed.) grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs, and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA NSA program to chart how, quote, ‘birds of a feather flock together’ online through search engine aggregation.

“And then one year later, they launched Google and then became a military contractor. Quickly thereafter, they got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software, essentially, and the ability to track, to use free speech on the Internet as a way to circumvent state control over media. Over in places like Central Asia or all around the world, it was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged.

“And all of the Internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state vpns (virtual private networks) to hide your ip address tor the dark web, to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, and to end encrypted chats.

“All these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA NSA projects to be able to help intelligence backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing a problem to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014, when there began to be an about face on Internet freedom and its utility.

“Now, the high watermark of the sort of Internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in 2011 2012, when you had this one by one, all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions.

“And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online. During those periods, there was a famous phone call from Google’s Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election.

“So free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all the ngos, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established – initially, for freedom.

“In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbass broke away. And they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary Chance, which 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 as they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment.

“And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Durasimov doctrine, which is named after this Russian military general who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed.

“You don’t need to win military skirmishes to take over central and eastern Europe (or anywhere else, ed). All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem, because that’s what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it’s infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media.

“An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the British Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit. Essentially infrastructure that was created, initially stationed in Germany and in central and eastern Europe, to create psychological buffer zones. Basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies, to censor Russian propaganda or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.

“So you had the systematic targeting by our State Department, by our CIA, by the Pentagon, of groups like Germany’s AfD, the alternative for Deutschland there, and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

“Now, when Brexit happened in 2016. That was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t have to worry just about central and eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds. And so Brexit was June 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity.

“So they went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it’s not just Russian propaganda. These were now Brexit groups, or groups like Mateo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now, at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It’s losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when the US was pressuring this energy diversification policy.

“And so they made the argument after Brexit. Now the entire rules-based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media, because Brexit would give rise to Brexit in France with Marine Le Pen, to spexit in Spain with the Vox party, to Italy. Exit in Italy to Gregson in Germany to Grexit in Greece. The EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired. And then, not only that, if NATO is gone, now there’s no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, or the World Bank.

“So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the Internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War II would collapse…

“.. it started out in Germany and in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and in Sweden and Finland. There began to be a more diplomatic debate about it after Brexit. And then it became full throttle when Trump was elected. And what little resistance there was washed over by the rise and saturation of Russiagate, which basically allowed them to not have to deal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people.

“Because if Trump was a Russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue. It was a national security issue. It was only after Russiagate died in July 2019 when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for 3 hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing, after two and a half years of investigation, that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place.

“Where they took all of this censorship architecture spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DoD, the DOJ, and then the thousands of government funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms, they were all basically transited from a foreign predicate, a Russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate, by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it’s actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself.

And so by that, they were able to launder the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit – just in time for the 2020 election.

“…well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives. That is the same people who argued that we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia, and that’s the predicate for getting rid of Milosevic and any other country around the world where we [the US, ed.] basically overthrow governments in order to ‘preserve democracy’.

“…So, you know, we have this State Department outfit called the Global Engagement center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel, who described himself as Obama’s propagandist in chief. He was the undersecretary for public affairs, which is essentially the liaison office role between the State Department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media.”

Tucker: May I add something to that? I know Rick Stengel. He was at one point a journalist. And Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against free speech…

Benz: Oh, yeah, he wrote a whole book on it. And he published an op ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it. And he made the argument that we just went over here that essentially the constitution was not prepared for the Internet, and we need to get rid of the First Amendment accordingly. And he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of Time magazine.

“…And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement center, which was the first government censorship operation within the federal government. But it was foreign-facing, so it was okay. Now, at the time, they used the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform in the US, because at the time, there were these ISIS attacks. And we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook. And so the Global engagement Center was established essentially to be a state Department entanglement with the social media companies, to basically put bumper cars on their ability to platform accounts.

“And one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which is called natural language processing. It is an artificial intelligence, machine learning ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the Internet and create this vast topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influences are, what they’re talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending, and to be able to create this sort of network graph in order to know who to target and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS folks were talking about on Twitter.

“When Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department was expecting these promotions to the White House National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who, I should remind viewers, was also secretary of state under Obama, actually ran the State Department. But these folks were all expecting promotions on November 8, 2016, and were unceremoniously put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to one underdog, according to the New York Times, the day of the election, and when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills, coercing governments for sanctions.

“…The State Department led the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation in 2014. These State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to censor the right wing populist groups in Europe, and, as a boomerang impact, to censor populist groups who were affiliated in the US. So you had folks who went from the State Department directly, for example, to the Atlantic Council, which was this major facilitator between government to government censorship.

“The Atlantic Council is a group that is one of Biden’s biggest political backers. They bill themselves as NATO’s think tank, so they represent the political concensus of NATO. And in many respects, when NATO has civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to synchronize with military action in a region, the Atlantic Council essentially is deployed to consensus-build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to NATO.

“Now, the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. A lot of people don’t even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on the board of a single organization. That’s kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry.

“They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. The Atlantic Council, in January 2017 moved immediately to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank attack on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for, to have US mimic European censorship laws.

“One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called NetsDG in August 2017, which essentially kicked off the era of automated censorship in the US. What NetsDG required was that unless social media platforms wanted to pay a $54 million fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than 48 hours that had been identified as hate speech, they would [censor them or] be fined basically into bankruptcy, when you aggregate 54 million over tens of thousands of posts per day.

“And the safe haven [for them to get] around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence-based censorship technologies, which had been again created by DARPA to take on ISIS, to be able to scan and ban speech automatically. And I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code…

Tucker: “But you’re not describing democracy. I mean, you’re describing a country in which democracy is impossible.”

Benz: “What I’m essentially describing is military rule. What’s happened with the rise of the [web] censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself.

“Democracy sort of draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it’s not being ruled by an overlord, because the government is actually just our will, expressed by our consent, with who we vote for.

“The whole push after the 2016 election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media-run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the 2016 Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the Internet.

“And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions.

“And who are the democratic institutions? Oh, it’s us. It’s the military, it’s NATO, it’s the IMF and the World Bank. It’s the mainstream media, it is the NGOs. And of course, these NGOs are largely State Department funded or CIA funded.

“It’s essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you’re left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the democratic institutions themselves.

“And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work to achieve what these people mean. For example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region, for the finance and the Morgan’s and the BlackRocks in a region, for the NGOs in the region, for the media in the region. All of these need to reach a consensus. And that process takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation. From their perspective, that’s democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with BlackRock, to agree with the Wall Street Journal, to agree with the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative. That is the difficult vote building process.

“From their perspective, at the end of the day, if a bunch of populist groups decide that they like a truck driver who’s popular on TikTok more than the carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass – well, then, from their perspective, that is now an attack on democracy. And this is what this whole branding effort was.

“And of course, democracy, again has that magic regime change predicate where democracy is our magic watchword. To be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style, a whole of society effort to topple a democratically elected government from the inside.

“For example, as we did in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people. Like him or hate him, I’m not even issuing an opinion there. But the fact is we color-revolutioned him out of office. We January 6-ed him out of office. You had State Department-funded right sector thugs and $5 billion worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of democracy…”

On February 23, 2024 the Gateway Pundit reported “In a series of explosive videos released by @MagaBabe on X/Twitter, high-profile figures have been caught on camera discussing behind-the-scenes activities related to U.S. foreign policy. The recordings reveal a concerted effort to influence political outcomes in Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey, and beyond. The leaked conversations feature shocking admissions from several key players, including retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. General Wesley Clark, a key figure in NATO’s history, is seen discussing his involvement with billionaire financier George Soros in Ukraine back in 2014. Clark’s revelations provide an unprecedented glimpse into the covert operations and strategies deployed in the region, which have long been subject to speculation and debate. The spotlight also falls on Action for Democracy, an enigmatic organization with the stated goal of promoting the Democrat Party’s foreign policy agenda across the globe…”

It seems leftists in Israel are colluding with the State Department.

On October 13, 2023 David Israel wrote in the Jewish Press “ Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday met with ‘Brothers in Arms,’ the crypto-fascist group whose goal has been to topple the Netanyahu government through months of lawless demonstrations and harm to the Israeli public.

“…what happens when the two-front war is over, and Israel is victorious, God willing? Alas, therein lies a nightmare scenario, which explains why Secretary Blinken is buddy-buddying with anti-government troops in Tel Aviv. The United States hopes to use the reconstruction period of Gaza after the end of the fighting to help the Palestinian Authority retake the Strip it was forced to flee in June 2007 after the Hamas takeover.

“Senior American and Western officials have told Reuters that the details of the plan have not yet been formulated and are dependent on the results of the Israeli attack.

” In other words, after Israeli soldiers shed their blood, God forbid, to uproot the Nazi regime in Gaza, the US and the EU will install Mahmoud Abbas as the ruler of the blood-soaked strip. With friends like these…

“According to Reuters, the Western countries are planning to invest billions in restoring Gaza, providing an opportunity for the PLO contractors to make a buck. And with the PLO running Judea and Samaria and Gaza, it would mark the start of applying the delusional two-state solution to which the Biden White House is addicted.

“Of course, the Right in Israel will resist such a satanic plan which would result in the Jewish State being surrounded by a unified terrorist state, possibly with sanctioned access roads cutting through Israel’s territory. And to deal with the Right’s stubbornness, the US will enlist the antigovernmental groups whose aim has always been to topple the Israeli government, no matter the cost, no matter how anti-democratic the very idea may be.

“Please do not forget the US Central Intelligence Agency has toppled enough democratically-elected regimes around the world to have their own United Nations. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, said the post-traumatized citizens of Troy watching their city burning.”

Question: Are the CIA and the Israeli Left led by the likes of Ehud Barak planning a color revolution in Israel? If not, why did Blinken meet leftist rioters group ‘Brothers in Arms’ ?

Remember: After Israel defeats Hamas, the US plans to bring Mahmoud Abbas to rule Gaza, and Blinken will then need those leftist rioters to campaign for him.

Israel’s Rightist majority will have to withstand the Left’s attempt to stifle democracy as expressing the will of the voters and to redefine it to mean sanctifying democracy’s institutions such as the Supreme Court.

Ezequiel Doiny is author of “Obama’s assault on Jerusalem’s Western Wall” and “Jerusalem is the Spiritual capital of Judaism while Mecca is the Spiritual Capital of Islam”

---