In today's world, the influence wielded by the Internet surpasses the destructive power of a nuclear bomb, as information has become the ultimate currency of control, and the Military Industrial Complex knows this.
The Global Information War: Censorship and Control in the Digital Age
As the world teeters on the brink of a potential global conflict, one of the most profound battlegrounds lies not in the physical realm, but in the control of information.
Governments and international organizations increasingly exert influence over the digital spaces that shape public perception, making decisions that directly impact the information we see and share. What’s especially alarming is that the very people advocating for more content moderation are the same ones who have been entangled in controversies regarding misinformation themselves.
In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, "Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere... American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand.” At that time, the internet was hailed as the ultimate beacon of free speech—a platform to amplify voices that challenge oppressive regimes. But now, just over a decade later, Clinton, along with many in power, advocates for increased regulation of the very platforms she once championed for open dialogue. What changed?
The Early Days: Internet as a Tool for Statecraft
To understand how we got here, we need to step back and look at the origins of the Internet itself. As Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, explains, “Free speech on the internet began as an instrument of statecraft.” In its infancy, the internet was seen by U.S. intelligence agencies as a tool to spread democratic ideals, particularly to nations with authoritarian regimes. It was a space where dissidents could congregate, mobilize, and overthrow oppressive governments, sometimes with the tacit approval of the West.
Benz further explains how this played into U.S. foreign policy: “Essentially, internet free speech operations allowed for instant regime change operations to facilitate foreign policy establishments' State Department agenda.” One of the clearest examples of this was during the Arab Spring (2011-2012), where platforms like Facebook and Twitter were used to organize protests that led to the fall of governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries. At this point, free speech on the internet was viewed as a powerful force for good, at least by those who controlled the narrative.
The Turning Point: From Free Speech to Control
But by 2014, the situation began to shift. Following the Ukrainian coup and counter-coup, which saw Crimea and parts of the Donbas region break away, NATO and intelligence agencies recognized that controlling media—especially social media—was crucial for winning modern wars. The so-called Gerasimov Doctrine from Russia posited that wars could be won not through traditional military might, but by influencing public opinion and manipulating elections. This was a game-changer.
The doctrine caught the attention of NATO, and the Western powers realized that controlling narratives on platforms like Twitter and Facebook was vital for maintaining political stability. Suddenly, free speech on the internet wasn’t an ally—it was a threat. And the threat wasn’t just from foreign adversaries like Russia; it was from internal populist movements as well, particularly right-wing groups that were challenging the status quo.
Enter Censorship: The Threat of Populism
One of the most prominent examples of this shift in focus was the rise of Donald Trump. His ascendance to the presidency in 2016 was seen as a direct challenge to NATO and the broader global establishment. Trump openly criticized NATO, demanding that member countries pay their fair share for defense, and his populist rhetoric emboldened similar movements across Europe. In response, both media and social media platforms ramped up efforts to suppress pro-Trump voices, often labeling their content as misinformation or hate speech.
The infamous "Russian Collusion" narrative, later debunked, was one of the most prominent examples of how misinformation was used as a tool to discredit Trump and his supporters. This narrative was heavily amplified by social media platforms, despite its shaky foundations, and was directly tied to intelligence agencies and individuals connected to Clinton, including her campaign’s infamous Steele Dossier. Yet, Clinton, despite her own involvement in the spread of misinformation, continues to push for stricter social media regulation today, advocating for penalties against Americans spreading what she deems as propaganda.
The Battle for Control: Whose Interests Are Being Served?
As social media becomes more controlled, one must ask: Who benefits from this increased censorship? As Tucker Carlson has pointed out, this isn’t just about protecting the public from misinformation—it’s about protecting the establishment from being challenged. If the global elite, supported by intelligence agencies and NATO, can control what information is seen and shared, they can influence elections, suppress dissent, and maintain their grip on power.
In many ways, this marks a stark departure from the early ideals of the internet, which was once seen as the great equalizer—a place where anyone could have a voice. But today, the internet is becoming increasingly curated, with powerful interests determining what content is allowed and what is not. The rise of fact-checkers, many of whom are funded by the very entities they are meant to be scrutinizing, only exacerbates this problem.
The Final Question: Can Democracy Survive in the Age of Censorship?
As more people question the role of intelligence agencies in suppressing free speech online, the question becomes: Can democracy survive if dissenting voices are silenced? When platforms that once empowered grassroots movements now work to suppress them, are we really living in a free society? As Carlson poignantly asks, is democracy itself becoming the enemy?
The implications of these questions are far-reaching. If the institutions that claim to protect democracy are the same ones working to limit public discourse, then who is really in charge? And whose interests are truly being served? The future of free speech—and democracy itself—may depend on how we answer these questions.
Genesis 2:16–17: "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Comments