The Big Tech Companies are Just Contract Mercenaries for the U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Donate

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront; Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

The Big Profits Driving Online Censorship

This summer we have witnessed the increasing demand by mainstream media, Democratic Party legislators, and even former disgraced intelligence agency heads, for the silencing of dissenting viewpoints. Although the most recent wholesale ban on Alex Jones and Infowars on just about every social media platform out there is the most glaring and chilling example of outright censorship, the efforts of the Deep State to silence any voices of dissent or for presenting a narrative counter to that being peddled by the almost complete monopoly of social and mainstream media that serves them has been building in intensity for quite some time. The claims that the big tech companies that control all social media platforms through virtual monopoly are not required to meet the constitutional protections of the 1st amendment, because they are not governmental agencies, but private businesses, is patently false.

Immediately following the blanket ban on Alex Jones related accounts on social media platforms, a multitude of mass media writers and pundits appeared to argue why such a move was both vital and wholly legal. Perhaps a more reasonable opinion in this regard was presented in the Washington Examiner. In an opinion piece by Erin Dunne, published on August 6th, the author makes too basic assertions. Firstly, she argues correctly, that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Secondly, she argues that private companies’ powers to regulate what speech is acceptable are not governed by the First Amendment. She succinctly states:

“Private companies, unlike government, are not beholden to court’s decisions on free speech. Facebook, Apple, and YouTube can all decide for themselves how to define hate speech and enforce that definition.

That makes sense. As private companies catering to users they have an obligation to shareholders to make a profit so they will pick a definition of hate speech that their users want and then enforce that.”

“For those who don’t like the chosen definition, there is also a simple solution: Don’t use those sites. This is how the market works. If you don’t like the terms of service then then there are other options (or soon will be). Companies want your business.

Unlike subscribing to the laws of the United States, the user agreements of social media companies are optional.”

Under most circumstances I would agree with Ms. Dunne’s second point, but the current case in question is quite different than any past case study in a private entity’s constitutional requirements where freedom of speech are concerned. Firstly, just a handful of big tech companies control virtually all social media platforms, effectively operating an illegal, anti-free market monopoly. This is not a normal, or even legal form of private business in the United States. Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials. This “usual suspects” line-up, representing what is now acknowledged as the Deep State, even by the mainstream media outlets that serve as its propaganda operation, are basically contracting a private company to do what they are legally prevented from doing so themselves. So, Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are working as independent contractors to conduct the type of censorship of the internet that the federal government would like to conduct through agencies such as the FCC or even the CIA and the NSA, but is legally prohibited from doing so.

The Big Tech Companies are Just Contract Mercenaries for the U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Only six corporations own all print, radio and broadcast media in the United States. Keep in mind that Comcast is owned by General Electric. General Electric ranks number 31 out of the top 100 corporations with federal government contacts, including a $637 million contract awarded just last month for the repair, replacement and program support of engine components used on the F-18 platform aircraft.

Are these monolithic tech companies acting as “the beard” for the federal government? By working through Facebook and Google, the federal government has plausible deniability, and has removed itself from legal responsibility. This is only true, if one cannot connect the dots and establish a very clear ideological and economic relationship between these tech giants and the intelligence agencies of the federal government. As convenient a tool for communication and collaboration that social media platforms have become, we all have to recognize that they are an intrinsic component of the Deep State apparatus.

Google, the largest online search engine by far, which also owns YouTube, won its first federal government contract to provide Google apps and cloud services to the GSA in 2010. This contract, worth $6.7 million at the time, was just the first of many. They are currently in the running to provide cloud services (coined JEDI) to the Department of Defense worth an estimated $10 billion. Other service providers competing for the business, some of which already provide similar services for federal government agencies, include Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, CSRA, and IBM. Google had a contract to aid the Department of Defense in developing AI technology (Project Maven), but announced its intent not to continue the work after tens of thousands of engineers employed by the company signed a petition sighting the unethical nature of the work. This principled stance by rank and file employees (not company executives) is encouraging.

It is well known that Amazon Web Services has a contract with the CIA worth a reported $600 million. Amazon created its “Secret Region” cloud service for the CIA in 2014, and has been providing these services ever since. Amazon is considered the front runner in winning the $10 billion contract to provide clouds services to the DOD. As Aaron Gregg reported for the Washington Post on August 7th,

“The $10 billion opportunity promises to be many times larger than Amazon’s earlier work with the CIA, something that has attracted interest from a diverse pool of software companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, IBM and General Dynamics. (Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post.)”

Did you catch the disclosure at the end? Yes, the owner of Amazon has his own propaganda service, the Washington Post. The Washington Post routinely runs articles praising the intelligence agencies regardless of their record of criminal behavior, has attacked Alex Jones and anyone that questions the “official narrative”, and has pushed the idea that there are limits that the federal government can impose on U.S. citizens constitutional rights. Oh yeah, and as a media provider with millions of customers, Alex Jones’ Infowars is a direct competitor of the Washington Post. See the conflict of interest here?

So how does Facebook fit in? Anyone that has followed the Facebook information sharing scandal of the past year knows that yes, Facebook does whatever the hell it wants with your personal information. They always have. And do you know who the first customer probably was? The NSA. Don’t kid yourself, you can be sure that Facebook and the intelligence agencies have a clandestine agreement in this regard. Both Facebook and the heads of the NSA have lied in testimony before Congress in the past.  Should this surprise anyone?

The Big Tech Companies are Just Contract Mercenaries for the U.S. Intelligence Agencies

James Clapper didn’t commit perjury when he lied to Congress while under oath in 2013 did he? In his words he “responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least most untruthful manner…”

Google has been helping the Chinese government censor internet searches originating in that country since 2006. China boasts over 772 million internet users, so the financial gain for Google is worth helping a totalitarian government stifle free speech and access to information. Apple removed all censorship circumventing apps from the company’s Chinese App Store. Amazon Web Services, through its Chinese partner Beijing Sinnet Technology, notified all of its clients to stop using any tools designed to circumvent the government’s online censorship tools. Although Facebook has still not been given the green light to open a subsidiary in China, over the issue of government imposed censorship regulations, the money will soon prove too hard an inducement to pass up, and Facebook will follow the lead of Apple, Amazon and even LinkedIn. That’s right, the same LinkedIn that banned Alex Jones from having a professional profile on its sight, has no qualms about censoring information available to its users in China at the behest of that nations communist government.

The Big Tech Companies are Just Contract Mercenaries for the U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Mark Zuckerberg only agreed to appear before members of Congress if his testimony was not given under oath, and thus not permissible in a court of law.

So we have a group of mass media outlets owned by large corporations, some of which are large defense corporation and some of which are social media monoliths. Both make millions of dollars off huge federal government contracts. Many former Department of Defense officials, generals, and heads of agencies such as the CIA, NSA and FBI are all paid contributors, analysts and consultants for these same media outlets. Many of these same individuals work for a well-known Deep State think-tank called the Atlantic Council. Why is this important you might ask? Well, they just happen to operate the Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab. As Joseph Menn wrote in an article for Reuters entitled “U.S. think tank’s tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media” on August 7th:

“Facebook is using the group to enhance its investigations of foreign interference. Last week, the company said it took down 32 suspicious pages and accounts that purported to be run by leftists and minority activists. While some U.S. officials said they were likely the work of Russian agents, Facebook said it did not know for sure.

Using its own software and other tools, the team sorts through social media postings for patterns.

Facebook donated an undisclosed amount to the lab in May that was enough, said Graham Brookie, who runs the lab, to vault the company to the top of the Atlantic Council’s donor list, alongside the British government.”

The Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Lab is made up of a research team with ties to the U.S. federal government. The Director and Managing Editor is Graham Brookie. His bio on the site states:

He previously served in various positions at the White House and National Security Council. His most recent role was as an adviser for strategic communications with a focus on digital strategy, audience engagement, and coordinating a cohesive record of former U.S. President Obama’s national security and foreign policy.”

So his most recent former job was to find out how to best lie about the utter failure of Obama’s national security and foreign policy and pass it off as a success story? Yeah, that’s who I want telling me what information to believe on the internet… And don’t forget Senior Fellow Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, and his partner in crime Lead Digital Forensic Researcher Aric Toler, also of Bellingcat. Then there are Senior Fellow Ben Nimmo who was a former NATO press officer, and Digital Forensic Research Associate Donara Barojan who is based at the NATO StratCom Center of Excellence in Riga, Latvia. Finally there is Senior Fellow Naz Durakoglu. Her bio on the site states:

“Naz Durakoglu came to DFRLab after her role in the Obama Administration as senior advisor to the assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the US Department of State. She has served on Capitol Hill and on several gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns and continues to advise Members of Congress, their staff, and companies on various foreign policy and national security matters.”

So this is the unbiased, independent organization filtering “real” and “fake” news for Facebook? I’m sorry, but their obvious and long running connections to the administration of former U.S. President Obama and NATO, not to the mention the proven anti-Russian trolls of Bellingcat, call into question any impartiality possible here. Are you starting to recognize the pattern in all of this? Here is a short list, and far from a complete list, of current Atlantic Council Directors and Honorary Directors:

Directors:

Henry Kissinger – former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor

Phillip M. Breedlove – former Commander, U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (NATO Supreme Commander)

James Cartwright – former USMC General and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Michael Chertoff – former Secretary of Homeland Security, co-author of the USA Patriot Act

Wesley Clark – former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (NATO Supreme Commander)

Michael Hayden – former  Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Michael Morell – former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

David Petraeus – former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Honorary Directors:

James Baker III – former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury

Ashton Carter – former U.S. Secretary of Defense

Frank Carlucci – former U.S. Secretary of Defense

Robert Gates – former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Michael Mullen – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Leon Panetta – former White House Chief of Staff and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

William Perry – former Secretary of Defense

Colin Powell – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice – former National Security Advisor and U.S. Secretary of State

Although I am not a lawyer, I would have to say that Alex Jones has a good case against all of the entities working to silence him for engaging in a racketeering enterprise. Clearly, the mass media, at the behest of the Deep State (most importantly the intelligence agencies) is creating a false narrative of a problem that needs to be solved, the “conspiracy theories, racism and hate speech” being propagated by Alex Jones. The social media providers are then pressured by government and the mass media to do something about this problem. Behind the scenes the federal government is paying these same tech companies tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to provide various services, while asking them to act as a proxy censor of online content, because it is illegal for the U.S. government to do so directly. The tech companies act on behalf of the government, becoming a coconspirator and racketeer along with the mass media. The mass media stands to benefit by destroying their competition, which has been devastating their control of information and their profitability. In some cases the tech companies own these same mass media outlets.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the opinions of Alex Jones or the information being provided on his many platforms, Infowars chief amongst them, he has the constitutional right to speak his mind and to operate a media platform that presents a different view of events. I do not agree with many of the opinions and views of Mr. Jones personally, but I would never support any efforts to silence him because his views run counter to mine. I can definitely say that nothing that I have ever read or viewed on Infowars can be described as racist or hateful. Many commentary found on mainstream media or social media can be clearly defined as racist or hateful, but as long as it fits in with the mainstream political and social narrative being pushed by mass media, academia, Hollywood and the Progressive Left, it is seen as acceptable speech. Take for example the recent revelations of racist tweets and comments made by the newest member of the editorial board at the New York Times, Sarah Jeong. The Times supports her and has no intention of firing her. She has been given a free pass, like so many others amongst the progressive left media and academia who have shown a long running pattern of anti-white racism, incitement to violence, and hateful commentary. Such is the double standard that we are faced with today.

The censorship and demonization of Alex Jones, love him or hate him, is just the beta test of wholesale government censorship by proxy. Infowars is the test case. If the American people allow this obvious violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to go unchallenged, Alex Jones will just be the first in a long line of voices silenced, because they put forward ideas and a narrative not embraced by the powers that be. After Jones, who will be next? The sky will be the limit. Acting as judge, jury and executioner, the “Mass Media – Social Media Giants – Military/Security Services” racket will silence anyone that threatens their narrative and their profits. They have a symbiotic relationship you see, and they feed off of the vast riches created for them by the military industrial complex that enslaves the rest of us. While the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos get rich depriving you of free speech and access to the truth, and the mass media pundits and former generals and CIA officers get rich peddling lies on the networks at the behest of a U.S. military industrial complex that has claimed the lives of millions globally, they would all have you think that Alex Jones is the monster. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so horrifying.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Brother Ma

    I may be wrong but companies are also not allowed to go against the Constitution on free speech or blocking free speech?? I believe that the market has nothing to do with it. What is hate speech and is illegal -as no free speech is allowed to cause sedition or incitement- must be the same for companies?

    Anyone an expert on American Law here?

    • AM Hants

      First Amendment

      First Amendment: An Overview

      The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

      Freedom of Religion

      Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of “blue laws” is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.

      Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

      The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements.

      A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

      Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

      Right to Assemble / Right to Petition

      The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual’s current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

      The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

      Last Updated in June of 2017 by Tala Esmaili.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

    • so

      The constitution? Since when did anyone care about that. Continuous corruption and criminality are the rule now. Those who have the money make the rules. The rest of us are just slaves……so they think.

    • SireRock1

      I think you have to look it like a person is allowed to protest Wal Mart on the public sidewalk out front of Wal Mart, you just cant go inside Wal Mart ( a private company) and exercise your free speech ( they can throw you out) Facebook, Twitter etc are claiming that they are Private Companies that make up their own rules on Speech and can kick people off at will. The argument and fight brewing is that Digital Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc ARE the Public forum now. They are in essence the “sidewalk” in front where people have the constitutional right to free speech & assembly. Look up “Packingham v. North Carolina”, its the Supreme Court ruling thats setting the stage for this argument.

      • Brother Ma

        Too true. They are now publishers and this should be accountable to the Constitution like any other entity REGARDLESS of being private companies. These platforms want ro have their cake and eat it as well!

        • SireRock1

          They will fail, God willing. This level of Big Tech censorship and social engineering based on their bankrupt “Silicon Valley Group Think” is a complete and total disgrace.

    • bonami

      That was always my understanding of the responsibility of the press, the argument here is that Facebook, YouTube are private companies and as such are not under any requirement to uphold the constitution or bill of rights.

      Solution? How about an Executive Order placing ALL publicly accessed media under a free speech mandate, stating that all voices are to be heard? Simple enough, one signature is all it takes.

      • Brother Ma

        Absolutely right. Bonami. Please see my response to Sire rock as well.

  • Brother Ma

    Haha. So Facebook will use a thinktank research firm we know to be Neocon -infested to decide on what is truth and thus scrub “fake news” from the net! Well now I have heard it all!

    So how are you different from “Brave New World “and “Big Brother “, Yanquistan?

    • so

      They aren’t and they don’t care. Yet

  • potcracker2588

    so whats new?

    • bonami

      What is new is the velvet glove is off and the metal fist is now visible. The Dems using their control of the MSM and other media outlets are blocking ANY avenue that expresses an opinion contrary to that of the Dems. My guess is their polling indicates that the Blue Wave is a nonstarter and the only way to gain ground in the Nov elections is to totally control all media. This is the End Game we are seeing, for if Trump gains the House he can wipe out the Dem deep state players.

  • Henk Poell

    The general trend in the west is to ditch cable subscription and watch more youtube/facebook/wikipedia/etc on the computer or phone… So it is a logical move for the ‘deep state’ or whatever you want to call it to focus on those platforms. And yes they can ban whoever they want.

    The whole conclusion of what’s happening is that the world needs an alternative social media channel that allows for dissent. Of course its unique selling point is going to be ‘independent’. If such a channel would push the dependent channels out of the market we would all be fine with that.

    • so

      What people need to do is to shut off the phones and computers and start speaking to each other from our hearts, respectfully and with empathy. But were just too busy.

      • zman

        Worse than that, it’s just not ‘convenient’.

      • bonami

        You need a mass audiences communicating in the US to accomplish anything, it is a large country, one to one conversations while good won’t do it.

    • Concrete Mike

      Yes my wife used to watch hgtv all the time, now its buzzfeed and youtube…frightening

    • Brother Ma

      All fine but the gov and the deep state would jam it or simply shut it down.

      The internet was supposed to be freedom and exposing ills. In fact,the platforms have all been co-opted or hacked to be nothing more than spyware or propaganda mouthpieces. Always remember that.

      We had more security and safety when we were using paper and pen and dollar notes.

    • bonami

      Kim Dotcom said he was going to create a private network, haven’t heard much about it in the last few months

  • Daniel Martin

    None are more hopelessly enslaved than
    those who falsely believe they are free.

     – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Nigel Maund

      Great quote – thanks for posting!

  • AM Hants

    The work of George Eliason, over on Oped News, complements this article.

    The US outsources 80% of it’s intelligence, to private contractors, who have no knowledge or understanding of international law, but, understand how to make the tax payer keep them in the style they have got used to.

    …………..

    History of it all

    The Private Contractors Using Vault 7 Tools for US Gov: Testimony Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild Part 1… https://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Private-Contractors-Us-by-George-Eliason-Hackers_Intelligence_Intelligence-Agencies_Websites-170331-791.html

    Why Vault 7 Tools Used by Private Contractors Shows US Intel Needs a Ground-Up Rebuild- It’s the News- Part 2… https://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Vault-7-Tools-Used-by-by-George-Eliason-Contractors-Gone-Wild_Hearings_Investigation_Media-170413-282.html

    Unmasking Propornot- Exposing Deep State Crimes… https://www.opednews.com/articles/Unmasking-Propornot-Expos-by-George-Eliason-CRIMINAL-CONSPIRACY_Crimes-Against-Humanity_Criminalizing-Dissent_Criminally-Complict-180127-235.html

    The Unthinkable -Consequences of Outsourcing US Intel… https://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Unthinkable-Consequen-by-George-Eliason-Intelligence-Agencies_Intelligence-Services_NATO_Outsourcing-180217-241.html

    How Intel for Hire is Making US Intelligence a Threat to the World Part 2… https://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Intel-for-Hire-is-Maki-by-George-Eliason-Agencies_Espionage_Intelligence_Intelligence-Agencies-180214-219.html

    ………..

    What can you do?

    Propornot 2 – Setting Up the Atlantic Council for Lawsuits… https://www.opednews.com/articles/Propornot-2–Setting-Up-t-by-George-Eliason-Atlantic-Council_Blacklist_Collaborators_Debate-180521-928.html

  • AM Hants

    Facebook teams up with NATO to censor news (Video)
    The Duran – News in Review – Episode 74… http://theduran.com/facebook-teams-up-with-nato-to-censor-news-video/

  • You can call me Al

    Well we knew that censorship was coming, but what surprised me, is that Infowars was the first of this latest batch; mainly due to it’s huge viewer ratings.

    I have a bad feel for what is going on at the moment, could it be the start of something big ?.

    • Brother Ma

      No doubt. The masks are now off and the gov does not care if you havebrealised that the internet and cell phones are nothing more than spyware and propaganda mouthpieces.

    • SireRock1

      And yesterday Twitter banned Gavin McInnes &The Proud Boys, a right wing conservative voice.

    • rpdiplock

      I suspect that we all need to have feelings of foreboding because the work of the ‘Deep State’ is almost complete. For a minute just think of ALL the (Ethno-cultural) Groups and suspicious international events we are NOT allowed to criticise and you soon realise that the proverbial ‘jackboot’ is well and truly on the side of one’s head with our collective bodies lying on the ground.
      Remember that there are still way too many of our peers and fellow human beings who still believe in the 9-11 fairy tale. This has emboldened the sociopathic tendencies of the ‘power-elite’ to indulge in all manner of, naked and in-your-face criminality, vis-a-vis the horrendous criminal shredding of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, etc. all for the benefits and interests of the Banks, big-business, private security interests and Israeli interests … using tax-payer’s money.

  • These tech giants are as much a part of the Deep State as IBM, Krupp, Messerschmitt, and Volkswagen were integral parts of the Third Reich. Fascism 101. Duh.

  • Re: “Secondly, these companies are banning individuals and groups in coordination with one another and at the behest of special interests groups, including current federal government legislators, the mass media, and former federal intelligence agency officials. This “usual suspects” line-up, representing what is now acknowledged as the Deep State . . .”

    In his book The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, Col. Fletcher Prouty, who was the briefing officer to the President of the US from 1955-1963, writes about “an inner sanctum of a new religious order.” By the phrase Secret Team he means a group of “security-cleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) and who react to those data.” He states: “The power of the Team derives from its vast intra-governmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses.” He further adds: “All true members of the Team remain in the power centre whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.”

    I have adopted the view outlined by Joseph Farrell in his Nazi International, The Reich of the Black Sun and The Third Way, by Alfred W. McCoy in his The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade and by William Engdahl in A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics And The New World Order. See also Peter Dale Scott´s writings. Essentially I am referring to a consortium of intelligence agencies, their bankers and the drug cartels who finance themselves off money laundering and resource expropriation.

    Post WW2 theft of Axis booty was used to finance intelligence agencies (see Seagrave: Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold” and the transfer of control over the Asian heroin trade (see: McCoy: “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade”) has been used to finance off-budget operations of intelligence agencies worldwide. The western deep state’s object is to capture the resources of eurasia and prevent a geopolitical alignment of Russia and Germany, formulated by MacKinder: The Geographical Pivot of History”(https://www.jstor.org/stable/1775498?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) and the modern exponents of western hegemony, such as George Friedman (http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=22223) and Brzezinski, of course. With regard to Russia, didn’t we seen a version of this movie in 1918? (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/ruscivil.jpg)

    In pertinent point:

    London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert

    Gomorrah author Roberto Saviano says ‘the British treat it as not their problem’

    “The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world’s drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-money-laundering-centre-for-the-drug-trade-says-crime-expert-10366262.html

    In my view, any attempt to analyse geopolitical machinations that doesn’t recognize the everyday efforts of the multiple entities alluded to above will lack depth. I’m not referring to the holdover, identifiable bureaucrats who survive from one political administration to the next. I’m referring to those who administer the funds laundered by the too-big-to-fail-too-big-to jail banks as well as the funds disappearing into the black holes of the defense department: see:

    Pentagon Claims That It Has “Lost” Over $18 Trillion, Which Probably Paid Foreign Army Payrolls

    https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/pentagon-claims-that-it-has-lost-over-18-trillion-which-probably-paid-foreign-army-payrolls/

    9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

    Cynthia Mckinney questions Rumsfeld and Myers about 9/11 War Games [and accounting]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6crfATz6PI

    MSU SCHOLARS FIND $21 TRILLION IN UNAUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT SPENDING; DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT FIRST-EVER AUDIT

    12-11-17

    Earlier this year, a Michigan State University economist, working with graduate students and a former government official, found $21 trillion in unauthorized spending in the departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015.

    The work of Mark Skidmore and his team, which included digging into government websites and repeated queries to U.S. agencies that went unanswered, coincided with the Office of Inspector General, at one point, disabling the links to all key documents showing the unsupported spending. (Luckily, the researchers downloaded and stored the documents.)

    Now, the Department of Defense has announced it will conduct the first department-wide, independent financial audit in its history (read the Dec. 7 announcement here).

    The Defense Department did not say specifically what led to the audit. But the announcement came four days after Skidmore discussed his team’s findings on USAWatchdog, a news outlet run by former CNN and ABC News correspondent Greg Hunter.

    “While we can’t know for sure what role our efforts to compile original government documents and share them with the public has played, we believe it may have made a difference,” said Skidmore, the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy at MSU.

    Skidmore got involved last spring when he heard Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, refer to a report which indicated the Army had $6.5 trillion in unsupported adjustments, or spending, in fiscal 2015. Given the Army’s $122 billion budget, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times spending authorized by Congress. Typically, such adjustments in public budgets are only a small fraction of authorized spending. Skidmore thought Fitts had made a mistake. “Maybe she meant $6.5 billion and not $6.5 trillion,” he said. “So I found the report myself and sure enough it was $6.5 trillion.”

    Skidmore and Fitts agreed to work together to investigate the issue further. Over the summer, two MSU graduate students searched government websites, especially the website of the Office of Inspector General, looking for similar documents dating to 1998. They found documents indicating a total $21 trillion in undocumented adjustments over the 1998-2015 period. (The original government documents and a report describing the issue can be found here.)

    In a Dec. 8 Forbes column he co-authored with Laurence Kotlikoff, Skidmore said the “gargantuan nature” of the undocumented federal spending “should be a great concern to all taxpayers.”

    “Taken together these reports point to a failure to comply with basic constitutional and legislative requirements for spending and disclosure,” the column concludes. “We urge the House and Senate Budget Committee to initiate immediate investigations of unaccounted federal expenditures as well as the source of their payment.”

    https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

    As they say, follow the money.

  • SireRock1

    Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that VIACOM & CBS are wholly owned subsidiaries of National Amusements Inc. Sumner Redstone & Family’s privately owned Mass Media holding company. Therefore there are really only five Mass Media Giants not six. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Amusements

  • Tim Müller

    Great work from Brian Kalman!! Thanks a lot.