Jeff Childers says Tucker’s latest interview is his most important yet . So lets get to it

……………………

Look no further for your weekend listening. Tucker just published his latest interview, this one with Mike Benz, a former Trump State Department official who’s testified in congressional hearings such as the House Weaponization Committee, and is the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. The interview — badly under-billed as a discussion about ‘free speech’ — is being described as one of Tucker’s most important interviews yet. It’s a knockout.

Tucker: “Wait a minute. It looks like they knew the outcome of the election seven months ahead of time.”

Benz: “It looks very bad.”

FULL INTERVIEW

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039

For right now, to give you a quick high-level overview, I found this three-minute clip including the rhetorical high-point of Benz’s talk

https://twitter.com/SmythRadio/status/1758701969458253850?s=20

In an hour, Benz easily and credibly connected so many dots it is hard to adequately describe. You might even call it a “theory of everything.” Tucker barely spoke. Benz talks fast, a rushing verbal stream spouting facts and names and data, slightly jumbled by a smidge of occasional wonkyiness. But Ben’s quick facility with the information also lends credibility, and listening to him explain what’s really going on is like watching in fast motion someone put a difficult ‘starry sky’ puzzle together.

Blam, blam, blam, the pieces keep plopping into place and you quickly start to see a new and unexpected vista — and then suddenly you get it, you know what it is, before the puzzle is even halfway done.

Benz started by summarizing the history of online “free speech.” It will not surprise you that it was always a military operation, beginning with the Internet itself (just ask Al Gore), and was extended by Pentagon-picked winners like Sergey Brin of Google, whose search engine company started with a DARPA grant. From the start of the Internet till shortly before the 2020 election, the military-intelligence complex loved free speech online; it was their best non-kinetic weapon and they liberally deployed it against foreign enemies, over and over.

In the process, they created a government-toppling, color-revolution-fomenting playbook for undermining ‘anti-democratic’ societies through subversive online speech and protest — what the toppled governments probably accurately called ‘disinformation.’

For short, I will collectively refer to the shady, permanent, parasitic underclass of the federal government and its captive horde of quasi-governmental, “public/private” NGOs, plus the swarming Neocons within the CIA, State Department, Pentagon/DoD, FBI, and now DHS, all together as the “Deep State.”

Tellingly, the Deep State playbook for starting a color revolution included using online free speech against our enemies (and against uncooperative allies) specifically by undermining confidence in elections and keeping handy large groups of standby protestors for immediate deployment whenever and wherever needed, which could be (and were) activated and directed through online posts and bulletin boards and so forth.

Stop for a second. Now you know why they freaked out and overreacted about 2021 ‘election deniers’ and January 6th protestors. To the Deep State, the grassroots pushback against the stolen election on social media involving a large Capitol protest looked just like their own color revolution playbook.

Anyway, picking up the timeline, back during the Internet’s salad years, the Deep State found free speech essential to democratic government, and routinely pounded the U.N.’s giant conference table demanding the Internet remain free for all everywhere in the world. They kept a firm grip — what Benz calls “guardrails” — on the U.S. electorate through corporate media “gatekeepers.”

But sometime shortly after Trump’s election, the Deep State’s love affair with free speech soured. It wasn’t just Trump. It was the whole rising rightwing nationalism, a movement deeply skeptical of the Big Government globalist institutions responsible for picking governmental winners and losers. The right wing was deeply skeptical of the Deep State itself.

The Deep State was shocked to see its own tools being used organically, by voters, to choose forms of government that were not approved by the Deep State, and to oppose the Deep State’s appointed darlings, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or to help effect Brexit, or to elect Trump. Worse, social media was replacing their captive media outlets and they were losing control of the narrative.

And so what they did was re-define free speech into something inherently anti-democratic. Unapproved speech, or politically-unhelpful speech, is now misinformation or disinformation or malinformation.

In other words, rather than being a critical part of its very essence, free speech became a threat to democracy. Which is kind of like saying that the heart began to threaten the head.

I’ve transcribed the part of Ben’s talk where I snatched up a pen and started writing as fast as I could (lightly-edited for clarity and to add context):

“What I am describing is military rule, a total inversion of the concept of democracy itself. What they said was, ‘We need to re-define democracy from being about the will of the voters, to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions. Which is us,’ (meaning the WEF, the Pentagon, the State Department, Blackrock, the NGO’s, the very same Elite Establishments that right-wing voters distrust.)

(Rather than voters), they declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy. ‘Democracy’ is just the consensus-building architecture within the democratic institutions themselves.”

Paradoxically, they view us, the voters, as the chief danger to democracy. I would not believe it possible if I hadn’t just watched them glibly re-define ‘vaccine’ and ‘gain of function’ like they were trying on outfits after stealing some poor woman’s Louis Vuitton off the airport luggage conveyor. Ultimately, Benz goes on to connect this grotesque re-definition of democracy, the “threat” posed to ‘democracy’ by voters and our free speech, to the 2020 election, Russia-gate, the Orwellian CISA censorship agency (which he described as a mutant hybrid of the CIA and the FBI), and by extension virtually everything else important happening in the news right now, not least of all why they must stop Trump at all costs.

To me, the timing of this interview looks like another careful move in the as-yet-undefinable drama unfolding this month. The information Benz disclosed is all publicly available, but Benz coherently ties it all together and names names.

To defeat an enemy, the first thing you need to know is: who is the enemy? And where are they?

Benz just tore off the enemy’s mask. The military-intelligence axis isn’t fighting ‘for democracy.’ They are fighting to preserve a failed, unwanted, liberal world order that has long since died and is well into the stinky decaying phase.

If learning Benz’s explanation feels overwhelming instead of empowering, stop thinking of winning in terms of a single apocalyptic battle. Try thinking about winning a war of inches, a guerrilla war waged in a thousand thousand tiny battles, from the halls of Congress right down to Penciltuckee’s School Board meeting room. Or if it ever comes to that, think about winning as a war of quiet resistance and stubborn noncompliance.

You can be quietly stubborn, can’t you?

Finally, I was so shocked by learning this that I am leaving you with Michael McFaul’s “7 Pillars of Color Revolution,” which has been the Deep State’s playbook for the last 20 years or so. Everyone needs to know that this is how they undermine democracies. Don’t be fooled by McFaul’s Orwellian reference to “semi-autocratic” regimes; he’s talking about us. After all, free speech is required for this formula to work, and free speech is not a feature of autocratic governments (by definition!). It is, after all, nearly undeniable that they successfully deployed this strategy to overthrow Ukraine’s government in 2014:

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

That’s straight from their own white papers. Does any of it sound familiar? It should. Let me know what you think in the comments.