Censorship by Agents of Elon Musk and Other Billionaires

4 November 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Numerous examples will be documented here of this censorship.

The censorship by agents of the billionaires is so extreme so that Lawrence Wilkerson, who has numerous confidential contacts at the top of America’s Government, says that even at the very top, American officials are deceived by their billionaire funders and refuse to do basic fact-checking on their own to know the reality. They are surrounded in a sycophantic billionaires-created bubble, by agents of their mega-donors who had placed them there. On November 3rd, CNN and Yahoo News headlined “The GOP claimed Biden didn’t know whom he was pardoning. Trump now admits he doesn’t know whom he’s pardoning”, and reported that both Presidents pardoned lots of individuals whom they didn’t even know of. Both Biden and Trump were handed likely billionaires’-agent-created lists of people to pardon (in addition to personal names such as Biden’s son Hunter) and he pardoned these individuals whose names he didn’t know. If that isn’t a Deep State Government instead of a democracy, then what is? Billionaires don’t have the power to pardon, so Presidents now do that job too for them.

Right now, there is perhaps more censorship by Republican Party and other conservative billionaires (such as Miriam Adelson, Rupert Murdoch, and Larry Ellison in favor mainly of Israel against Palestinians) than by Democratic Party and other liberal billionaires (such as George Soros, Laureen Powell Jobs, and Donald Newhouse in favor mainly of Ukraine against Russia), but at other times, the censorship is more in the opposite direction (more by liberal billionaires than by conservative ones). However, regardless of which major political Party is in power at the given time, censorship is always in favor of billionaires against — and it’s done in order to deceive (hide the truth from) — the public, so as to win ‘democratic’ elections. And, regardless of whether the election is won by the liberal billionaires or by the conservative billionaires, the public lose the election.

Walter Lippmann, on pages 4 and 5 in his brief (120-page) 1920 book Liberty and the News, was the first person to introduce the concept of the “manufacture of consent” that’s done by the press, but he refused to blame billionaires (the people who, and whose corporations, control and advertise in the major ‘news’-media) for doing this “manufacturing” (warping the public’s political understandings):

Everywhere to-day men are conscious that somehow they must deal with questions more intricate than any that church or school had prepared them to understand. Increasingly they know that they cannot understand them if the facts are not quickly and steadily available. Increasingly they are baffled because the facts are not available; and they are wondering whether government by consent can survive in a time when the manufacture of consent is an unregulated private enterprise. For in an exact sense the present crisis of western democracy is a crisis in journalism. I do not agree with those who think that the sole cause is corruption. There is plenty of corruption, to be sure, moneyed control, caste pressure, financial and social bribery, ribbons, dinner parties, clubs, petty politics. The speculators in Russian rubles who lied on the Paris Bourse about the capture of Petrograd are not the only example of their species. And yet corruption does not explain the condition of modern journalism.

He resolutely held this conviction for the rest of his long life, but it was factually (and even logically) false. He wasn’t intelligent enough to recognize that “when the manufacture of consent is an unregulated private enterprise,” the manufacturers of consent will turn out to be the richest .01% of the richest .01% because it is they who donate more than 50% of the money to the political campaigns in their ‘democracy’, in order to make sure that even if a candidate whom they favor will lose to ‘the opposite side’s billionaires’ candidate, the outcome will still end up producing a government official who has effectively been placed there by (and is beholden to) only the billionaires — the very few individuals who can spend whatever they must spend in order to exclude (effectively censor-out from the Government) there being a Government official who in any serious way poses a threat to billiionaires’ control over the Government — and this is the “corruption” that Lippmann simply ASSUMED did not exist in enough size so as to PRODUCE this “manufacture of consent” by the public to — but consent to WHAT? He didn’t say. It is consent to the agenda of the billionaire-class, who not ONLY control the stocks in the major ‘news’-media but ALSO control the corporations that advertise in these media. So, Walter Lippmann refused to notice this logical contradiction within his own thoughts (inasmuch as he DID recognize that the question here is “whether government by consent can survive in a time when the manufacture of consent is an unregulated private enterprise” — such as is the case in the United States). (And he never subsequently addressed the question of how it OUGHT to be “regulated” — except to say, in his 1922 book Publlc Opinion that it ought to be done by “experts,” but selected and paid by whom? Yet again: he did not say.)

The following will document what Lippmann never investigated nor inquired into and which he enjoyed a phenomenally successful career as a journalist by avoiding to discuss — censored-out from his ever writing about:

The control of the Government by the billionaires requires censorship against truths that contradict what billionaires crave and will spend however much they must spend in order to achieve what they crave, such as further expansion of their empire — such as to control Russia, China, Iran, Palestine, and Venezuela.

First, here, will be given experiences of the great investigative journalist Felix Abt as reported in his recent article; then mine from my own articles, and closing with an explanation of the bipartisanship of billionaires in their perpetrating censorship upon and against the public:

—

——
https://forumgeopolitica.com/article/when-your-free-speech-costs-you-your-bank-account

https://archive.ph/Nq3aG

“When Your ‘Free’ Speech Costs You Your Bank Account”

Imagine waking up one morning to find your account frozen — not because of fraud, but because of your opinion. No access to your money. No explanation. No appeal. Welcome to a world where censorship doesn’t just erase words — it stops lives. Your bank has become a weapon.

Felix Abt

Mon 03 Nov 2025

442

2

Censorship is no longer confined to the digital realm. Social media platforms can block content — but banks can do the same, quietly and invisibly. They can cut off your access to money, to livelihood, to the very tools of independence. Welcome to the age of financial censorship.

As a YouTuber, I learned the hard way that free speech comes at a price. Post something “too politically incorrect” — and suddenly, bam — you’re demonetized. Show an iconic black-and-white photo of Josephine Baker, who performed topless in Berlin a century ago, and your video gets blocked — along with a warning that could threaten your channel. Criticize Greater Israel, and your Twitter account vanishes into the shadows of shadow-banning — under the watch of Elon Musk, the self-proclaimed champion of free speech.

Even platforms that once welcomed my work, like Medium, can turn cold overnight — banning me without explanation, as if I never existed. Welcome to an era where speaking your mind can cost not only your voice, but your very means of existence.

Censorship on social media is visible. But few realize that financial institutions can — and already do — the same: they can close your bank account solely because of your beliefs.

The Debanking of Panquake: When Banks Weaponize Finance

“Financial institutions now decide who can speak—and who can survive.”

In an interview with Kim Iversen, former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou dissected “debanking”—where banks terminate accounts for political reasons rather than legal ones. The case at the center: Panquake, a privacy-focused tech startup.

1. The Panquake Case: A Precedent-Setting Legal Battle

The Incident: Panquake’s Icelandic bank accounts were frozen without explanation or due process. Iceland isn’t in the EU but has strong ties—like the Schengen Agreement.

The Company: A green startup powered by geothermal energy, founded by individuals with clean records. Its principles: privacy, security, transparency.

The Motivation: Kiriakou suggests the debanking was politically motivated—Panquake’s support for whistleblowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden made it a target. The goal?

“Smother the company in its crib.”

The Legal Response: Panquake is fighting back in Iceland with the WikiLeaks legal team, but Icelandic law does not recognize a discovery process — a civil procedure, primarily in the U.S., in which parties are required to disclose relevant information, evidence, and documents. This makes it difficult to compel the bank to reveal internal communications.

The Stakes: The funds have since been unfrozen—but the battle is about principle, not money. The goal: prevent banks from discriminating based on political beliefs.

2. Debanking as a Widespread Censorship Tool

Kiriakou’s Personal Experience: Kiriakou’s personal experience: After exposing CIA torture, he was systematically debanked. Bank of America and USAA (a large U.S. financial organization originally founded to provide banking and insurance services to military members and veterans) severed their relationships with him. Local banks immediately rejected him as well.

A Broader Pattern: Panquake’s story mirrors Parler’s collapse: removed from app stores, cut off from banking—effectively shut down. Parler, which marketed itself as a “free speech zone” for conservative voices with millions of followers, was ultimately removed from Google, Apple, and Amazon. Similarly, Panquake faced financial exclusion in Iceland, showing that censorship can extend beyond social media into the financial system itself.

“Financial access has become a mechanism for controlling speech.”

Recent Example: According to Kiriakou, Amazon canceled an event for Arab-American Heritage Month with only 48 hours’ notice — presumably because of a pro-Palestinian message. Corporate censorship and financial censorship are two sides of the same coin.

3. “Know Your Customer” vs. Privacy

From Good Intentions to Political Control: “Know Your Customer” (KYC) laws were meant to stop money laundering and human trafficking—but now serve as a political filter.

A Principle of Liberty: Banks should not decide the morality or politics of their clients. Law enforcement should handle crimes.

“Apple refused to unlock a terrorist’s phone. Principles matter—even in extreme cases.”

The Slippery Slope: Sacrificing liberty for security erodes fundamental rights. US Vice President Cheney’s logic—“lock up 100 innocent men to catch one guilty man”—illustrates the danger.

Conclusion

Debanking is a quiet but powerful front in the war for free speech and privacy. Financial power is weaponized by corporate and state actors to silence dissent. Protecting financial inclusion—regardless of political belief—is essential.

“If access to money can be denied for your thoughts, liberty itself becomes a privilege, not a right.”

Other Cases of Debanking

Nigel Farage (UK): Coutts closed his account citing “reputational risk” and, likely, political views.

Pro-Palestinian Couple (UK): Yorkshire Building Society closed their account without explanation.

Young Australian Nationalist: Bendigo Bank closed his account citing “legitimate interests,” likely political.

Sam Brownback (U.S.): Former Kansas Governor claims JPMorgan Chase closed his account due to conservative and religious views.

AfD Party (Germany): Volksbank Düsseldorf‑Neuss closed a local chapter’s account “for business reasons” ahead of elections.

Swiss Expats: Imagine decades of trust with your bank suddenly wiped out overnight. Many Swiss citizens living abroad, including myself, have experienced exactly that. Banks closed longstanding accounts—not for fraud—but due to U.S. regulations like FATCA, which require reporting on U.S. taxpayers. Banks, wary of compliance and potential sanctions, cut off essential services, leaving expats scrambling to maintain access to their own money.

Headline in Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger: “Emigrants suddenly without bank account.”

“You can follow the law, mind your business, and still be shut out of the banking system simply because of where you live or who might have a claim on your taxes.”

A highly explosive current case: Berliner Zeitung – one of the very few mainstream outlets with real backbone – is reporting on something almost no one else dares to talk about.

“Pfizergate: EU Lobbyist Filed Charges Against von der Leyen – Banks Are Now Freezing His Accounts.”

Former EU lobbyist Frédéric Baldan has filed a lawsuit against Ursula von der Leyen in connection with the “Pfizergate” scandal. Shortly afterward, banks suddenly froze his accounts.

Berliner Zeitung exposes how banks moved against a citizen simply for exercising his legal right to challenge the alleged corruption of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (Screenshot Berliner Zeitung)

Coincidence – or deliberate intimidation?

How far does the influence of a supposedly corrupt, authoritarian, and never democratically elected President of the European Commission [now von der Leyen] really reach?

“You can follow the law, mind your business, and still be shut out of the banking system simply because of where you live or who might have a claim on your taxes.”

Broader Patterns

Banks rarely cite politics openly. Instead: “regulatory/compliance risk,” “reputational risk,” “commercial decision.”

Payment processors (Stripe, PayPal, AWS) can “debank” platforms by cutting revenue or hosting—Gab and Parler are examples.

Protections vary widely. Account closures remain opaque, making political bias hard to prove.

Bottom Line

Financial censorship is real. From social media demonetization to banks quietly cutting accounts, institutions that control your money can silence your voice.

——

Now, from my own articles (here and here):

——

Back in or around 2014, 43 international-news media were publishing my articles, and some of them were mainstream liberal media, some were mainstream conservative, and others were libertarian, but the vast majority were non-mainstream. When Barack Obama in February 2014 perpetrated a coup in Ukraine that installed a rabidly anti-Russian government there on Russia’s border and that was instead ‘reported’ as-if it had been a ‘democratic revolution’, which coup-imposed regime perpetrated a massacre against its pro-Russian protestors inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa on 2 May 2014 (see especially the charred bodies of its victims at 1:50:00- in that video), I started writing about Ukraine; and, then, those 43 international-news sites gradually whittled themselves down to only 7; and, yet, none of them ever alleged that anything in any of my articles was false and asked me to prove it true, but they were instead getting pressure from Google, and from the FBI, and from other Establishment U.S. entities, and were afraid of being forced out of business (which many of them ultimately were) by them. The personal narrative that will now be provided here is about the latest of these cases, which threatens the site Modern Diplomacy, which had been an excellent international-affairs news site and included writers from all across the international-affairs news spectrum, for and against every Government’s policies, and from practically every angle. I had long been expecting MD (because of its impartiality) to receive a warning from the U.S. regime, and this finally happened late in December 2022, when the site’s founder, D., sent me this notice:

Dear Eric, do you know who are these guys? https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/

They sent me an email with allegations mentioning your articles as false claims and MD as a pro-kremlin propaganda website due to these.

Do they have any influence on Search engines and social media? Will we have any problems at all?

Thanks

D.

I replied with an email

Subject: Since you are a co-founder,

Date: Dec 24, 2022 at 9:20 AM

To: moc.hcetdraugswen@llirb.nevets

Cc: [D.]

I ask you please to explain to me, and to the webmaster at moderndiplomacy.eu, why your organization — well, here is what he sent me about what your organization did:

[I pasted in D.’s message to me.]

As you can see there, he is afraid (that’s a weak version of terrorized) that your organization will downgrade his site because of his site’s posting some of my articles.

It seems to me that there are two reasonable types of responses that you can give him and me:

Either you will cite falsehoods in one or more of my articles at his site

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/author/ericzuesse/

(but, of course, you could also do that regarding any edition of the New York Times or Washington Post; so, why would that be a reason?), or else:

You could search to find such falsehoods, find none, ask your employee why he or she is terrorizing that webmaster and (essentially) indirectly threatening me; and, if that employee fails to provide a reasonable and entirely true answer, which justifies what he or she has done, fire that person and inform the rest of your staff that you have done so and explain to all of them WHY you fired the employee, so that they all can then know to STOP DOING THIS!!!

Sincerely,

Eric Zuesse

Brill didn’t respond. So, I sent to D.:

I take my not having received a reply from either Steven Brill or you to be an ominous sign, because, suddenly, none of my recent articles has been posted by your site. Would you please explain? (If you are cancelling me as an author, I shall remove your site from my submissions-list.) After all, you said “They sent me an email with allegations mentioning your articles as false claims and MD as a pro-kremlin propaganda website due to these.” Did they state what those “false claims” were? Did you ask them? I very much doubt that they were able to find anything in any of my articles that is false. No one has ever before, to my knowledge, alleged any assertion in any of my articles to be false. I don’t ever make a claim that is false. I am EXCEEDINGLY careful. And any assertion in any of my articles that I think some readers MIGHT find questionable I provide a link to its documentation. So, I would distrust that allegation from Brill’s organization and consider it to be likely a lie from them in order to censor out from the news-media information that the U.S. regime wishes the public not to know. Would you not want to know whether that allegation from them was merely an excuse to censor out from your site information that they don’t want the public to know?

D. responded:

Dear Eric,

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your efforts in contacting newsguard, although I was surprised to see that you used my message I sent you in your contact email without my consent. Now they know I took it seriously. Anyway, I decided to stop publishing your articles — at least for a while and see how it goes. Part of my decision was of course the threats (not only from them) but also the fact that you are spreading them to a lot of websites and that google considers it as “scraped content”. I will try to stay in exclusive content although I appreciate your work and your courage.

I worked really hard these 10 years for MD and still can’t monetize it to support the expenses and me of course. Also I am tired and I am thinking about the possibility to find a buyer and stand back. Just keep it in mind, in case you find someone interested in it.

Of course we can stay in touch and keep sending me your articles — at least to have the opportunity to read them.

Below, you will find newsguard allegations concerning your articles. Please don’t use it to reply to them — we both know that there is no use. Instead, maybe you can write a new piece debunking them.

Kind Regards

D.

Here is what he had received from News Guard, and which I shall here debunk [between brackets]:

We found that Modern Diplomacy articles often link to sites rated as unreliable by NewsGuard for promoting false information, such as OrientalReview.org, pro-Kremlin site TheDuran.com, and en.interaffairs.ru <

http://en.interaffairs.ru

> , owned by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The site has also republished articles from sites such as The Gray Zone, rated unfavorably by NewsGuard for repeatedly publishing false claims about the Russia-Ukraine war and Syrian chemical attacks. Could you comment on why Modern Diplomacy republishes or links to sites which consistently promote false claims?

[Rating allegations as “true” or as “false” ON THE BASIS OF the identity of the SITE instead of on the basis of the specific allegation in the specific article (or video) is a standard method of deception of the public, which censors employ to distract and manipulate individuals (readers, etc.) by appealing to their existing prejudices such as (for an American conservative or Republican) “Don’t trust the N.Y. Times” or (for an American liberal or Democrat) “Don’t trust the N.Y. Post” (or, for both, “Russia is bad

and wrong, and America is good and right”). It is appealing to prejudices and emotions, instead of to facts and evidence — it is NOT appealing to actual truth and falsity. It is a method of deception.]

We also found that ModernDiplomacy.eu has repeatedly published false and misleading claims about the Russia-Ukraine war.

For example, a June 2022 article titled “Have Europeans been profoundly deceived?,” claims to provide evidence that “A coup occurred in Ukraine during February 2014 under the cover of pro-EU demonstrations that the U.S. Government had been organizing ever since at least June 2011.”

[The word “coup” in that article was linked to this video, every detail of which I have carefully checked and verified to include ONLY evidence that is authentic — and no one has contested any of the evidence in it. The first item of evidence that is referred-to in this video is at 0:35, which item is the audio of a private phone-conversation between two top EU officials in which one, who was in Kiev while the coup was occurring, reported to his boss, who wanted to know whether it was a revolution or instead a coup, and he reported to her that it was a coup, and described to her the evidence, which convinced her. My article later says “Here is that phone-conversation, and here is its transcript along with explanations (to enable understanding of what he was telling her, and of what her response to it indicated — that though it was a disappointment to her, she wouldn’t let the fact that it had been a coup affect EU policies).” This news-reporting is of real evidence, not distractions, not any appeal to the reader’s (and listener’s) prejudices, either. But Mr. Brill’s employee apparently didn’t check my article’s sources (gave no indication of having clicked onto any of my links), because he or she was judging on the basis purely of that person’s own prejudices — NOT upon the basis of any evidence. Then, at 3:35 in that video, is audio of another private phone-conversation, which was of Obama’s planner of the coup, Victoria Nuland, telling his Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, whom to get appointed to run the stooge-regime after the coup will be over, “Yats” Yatsenyuk, which then was done. My article also says “Here is that phone-conversation, and here is its transcript along with explanations (to enable understanding of whom she was referring to in it, and why).” The reference to “June 2011” had appeared in this passage from a prior article of mine, where that two-word phrase linked to Julian Assange’s personal account of the matter — the Obama Administration’s early planning-stage for the coup in Ukraine — that explains how those “pro-EU demonstrations” had been engineered by Obama’s agents. So: everything in that paragraph by Brill’s employee was fully documented in my links — which that person didn’t care to check.]

However, there is no evidence that the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine that led to the ouster of then-president Viktor Yanukovych was a coup orchestrated by the United States. … Angry protesters demanded Yanukovych’s immediate resignation, and hundreds of police officers guarding government buildings abandoned their posts. Yanukovych fled the same day the agreement was signed, and protesters took control of several government buildings the next day. The Ukrainian parliament then voted 328-0 to remove Yanukovych from office and scheduled early presidential elections the following May, the BBC reported. These events, often collectively referred to as the “Maidan revolution,” were extensively covered by international media organizations with correspondents in Ukraine, including the BBC, the Associated Press, and The New York Times.

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim, despite evidence to the contrary?

A March 2022 article titled “Who actually CAUSED this war in Ukraine?” states that “Russia had done everything it could to avoid needing to invade Ukraine in order to disempower the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there.”

In fact, Nazis are not running Ukraine. … Svoboda won 2.2 percent of the vote. Svoboda currently holds one parliamentary seat.

In February 2022, U.S. news site the Jewish Journal published a statement signed by 300 scholars of the Holocaust, Nazism and World War II, which said that “the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime” is “factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive to the memory of millions of victims of Nazism and those who courageously fought against it.” Additionally, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, addressed the Russian public in a Feb. 24, 2022, speech, saying that these claims do not reflect the “real” Ukraine. “You are told we are Nazis. But could people who lost more than 8 million lives in the battle against Nazism support Nazism?”

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim [that “the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there”], despite evidence to the contrary?

[Yet again, Mr. Brill’s employee simply ignores my evidence — fails even to click onto my links whenever he disagrees with an allegation that has a link. Here was my published assertion, as it was published: “Russia had done everything it could to avoid needing to invade Ukraine in order to disempower the nazis who have been running the country ever since Obama’s 2014 coup placed it into the hands of rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists there.” The evidence is right there, just a click away, but Mr. Brill’s employee again wasn’t interested in seeing the evidence. (Nor is Brill himself.)]

An April 2022 article titled “Authentic War-Reporting From Ukraine,” promotes a video report by pro-Kremlin journalist, Patrick Lancaster, filmed in the Eastern Donbas region of Ukraine. The article asserts that Ukraine was “constantly shelling into that region in order to kill and/or compell to flee anybody who lived in that region […] It was an ethnic cleansing in order to get rid of enough of those residents so that, if ever that area would again become integrated into Ukraine and its remaining residents would therefore be voting again in Ukrainian national elections, the U.S.-installed nazi Ukrainian regime will ‘democratically’ be able to continue to rule in Ukraine.” (The article also repeats the claim that the 2014 revolution was a US-backed coup, and makes the unverified claim that “The CIA has instructed all of Ukraine’s nazis (or racist-fascists) to suppress their anti-Semitism and White Supremacy until after Ukraine has become admitted into NATO.”)

The claim that Ukraine conducted an “ethnic cleansing” in the Donbas echoes a falsehood propagated by the Russian government for years. There is no evidence supporting the claim that genocide occurred in Ukraine’s eastern region of Donbas. The International Criminal Court, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have all said they have found no evidence of genocide in Donbas. The U.S. mission to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe called the genocide claim a “reprehensible falsehood” in a Feb. 16, 2022 post on its official Twitter account. It said that the mission “has complete access to the government-controlled areas of Ukraine and HAS NEVER reported anything remotely resembling Russia’s claims.”

Could you please comment on why Modern Diplomacy repeated this false claim, despite evidence to the contrary?

[Yet again, Mr. Brill’s employee relies upon people’s opinions — but ONLY ones who agree with his — instead of any evidence at all. Here, on behalf of myself, and of Modern Diplomacy, and of Patrick Lancaster (INSTEAD OF on behalf of Lockheed Martin and the other U.S.-and-allied international-corporate entities that are profiting from this war), are nine news-reports linking to actual evidence which disproves those opinions:

“Mortar shelling in Kramatorsk. Nazis attacking city district.” 18 May 2014

“Ukraine crisis: ‘Those fascists killed this girl and they will be in hell’” 5 May 2014

“Ukraine Crisis: Kiev’s Slovyansk ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ Kills 300 Pro-Russian Separatists” 4 June 2014

“Luhansk. After Air Strike. Part 4 (of 6)” 2 June 2014

“AP’s Matt Lee challenges White House’s lies on Ukraine” 7 July 2014

“Obama Definitely Caused the Malaysian Airliner to Be Downed” 18 July 2014

“How Our People Do Their Extermination-Jobs In Ukraine” 23 October 2014

“What Obama’s Ukrainian Stooges Did” 10 October 2014

“Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’” 3 February 2015]

My final reply to D.’s final rejection of my position was:

As regards myself, I am with Chris Hedges (who quit the N.Y. Times over this) and with Consortium News (which is standing up against the same pressure that you are caving to), in order to have any hope that the future might possibly be better than the present.

At the same time when News Guard was threatening Modern Diplomacy and perhaps forcing that site to reject all future submissions from me, the news-site, Consortium News, was likewise being threatened by Brill’s shills. On December 29th, Consortium News headlined “On the Influence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine: A short history of neo-Nazism in Ukraine in response to NewsGuard’s charge that Consortium News published false content about its extent”. That, too, is an excellent example of censors killing truths and leaving only lies. However, mega-corporate America has a number of such ‘fact-checking’ truth-destroying organizations: New Guard is only one of them.

These self-styled truth-policemen of the Web represent the regime, and came into being after the Web itself did. The Web enabled — for the first time in history — articles to be published and read that link to their sources, and this opened up a new possibility and reality, in which the online readers could actually evaluate ON THEIR OWN (by clicking onto such links) the evidence. That upset the billionaires’ applecarts of ‘authoritative opinion’ (which they have hired) so that authoritarianism (which they control) could become replaced by facts (which they can’t).

——

Among the many news-reports I’ve done that the Deep State decided to eliminate from history, was my 20 December 2019 “Proof that America’s “Deep State” Exists and Controls the Government”, at The Duran, which was republished at Zero Hedge, The Saker, Europe Reloaded, Modern Diplomacy, and sott.net. If you Google that title, “Proof that America’s ‘Deep State’ Exists and Controls the Government”, then only two of those six sites show up as finds: the other four do not, though the article still is live at 5 of the 6 sites. At the other four sites, the article is still live at 3 of them — but Google’s algorithm is simply hiding it from Web-searchers: it excludes from showing up in Web-searches anything on those 3 sites; they are banned sites. (The 4th of these sites had yielded to a threat from a Deep State agency; and, therefore, months ago, had removed that article from the live Web; so, that ‘find’ is actually months out-of-date.) Furthermore, where the article refers and links to “my December 15th news report, “Two Huge Suppressed News-Reports in a 3-Day Period Display Corrupt U.S.-&-Allied Mainstream Press”, that link, there, produces, as Google finds, nothing, or maybe one find, though the linked-to article was at The Duran, Greanville Post, Eurasia Review, Global Research, The Russophile, RobScholte Museum, and AlHayam. It still is live at all of those 7 sites except The Russophile. Consequently, it’s not showing up at the other 6 sites because Google is suppressing those sites. (Actually, Google is suppressing all 7 of the sites, but The Russophile had removed that and other articles because they’re trying to cut expenses.) So: the information in that linked-to article is effectively being hidden from the public, by employees of the Deep State.

Both of those articles were documenting the Deep State. In the U.S.-and-allied media contest between lies and truths, lies get overwhelmingly the more funding. (There are many ways this is done. I have elsewhere described how a hired arm of the Deep State succeeded in forcing one of my online publishers to cease publishing me and to remove all of the hundreds of my articles there from their archive.)

Wealth has now become sufficiently concentrated in the United States so that the under-a-thousand billionaires can and do shape what the public ‘know’, to such an extent that these few persons have — via their millions of hired agents — enough collective control over voters so as to guarantee that any candidate whom all billionaires oppose, will stand virtually no opportunity to win public office. Controlling the ‘news’, and the universities and think tanks, is controlling the Government. This way, the billionaires’ megacorporations control even the ‘regulatory’ agencies of the Government that are supposed to regulate them in the interests of the public. The revolving door between ‘government and the private sector’ virtually invites corruption to control the Government. This system has become today’s American ‘democracy’. Thus: wealth brings power, and power brings wealth, in a vicious circle. Both Parties are deeply corrupt. The public gets to choose between the candidate of the Democratic billionaires versus the candidate of the Republican billionaires. The winner represents the winning group of billionaires.

My article, “Proof that America’s “Deep State” Exists and Controls the Government”, goes far beyond the Mueller Special Counsel investigation, which had failed to convict anyone in the Trump-Russiagate matter, and that article proved the entire Russiagate matter to have been a carefully calculated hoax by (the billionaires who finance) the Democratic Party, in order to not only defeat Trump, but also smear Russia in the ways that all of America’s billionaires want to do (and that no American billionaire wants to oppose doing — the goal is evidently unanimous amongst them to build the hate, and lying is essential for that purpose). That article quotes Seymour Hersh saying that in “late spring early summer” of 2016, a dissident employee of the Democratic National Committee, Seth Rich, was outraged at Hillary Clinton’s theft of the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination away from Bernie Sanders, and contacted Wikileaks to arrange for someone to come from England and pick up a thumb-drive copy of his hard drive and take to Wikileaks the emails and other communications that were on it, so as to expose her — and the DNC’s — theft of that nomination for her. And Hersh then said, at 5:50 in the recording, “It’s a Brennan [CIA] operation. It was an American disinformation, and the fucking President [Obama], at one point when they even started telling the press — they were back[ground]-briefing the press, the head of the NSA was going and telling the press, the fucking cocksucker Rogers, telling the press that we [they] even know who in the Russian military intelligence service leaked it. All bullshit.” So: not only Mueller couldn’t get any jury to convict anybody, but Mueller’s assertions that, nonetheless, Russia had tried to manipulate a win for Trump, were actually pure lies, and there was NO HACK, at all. It was instead A LEAK — to Wikileaks — and not only the CIA but the FBI were in on the anti-Russian (and anti-Trump) propaganda-operation that was Russiagate.

Then, on 22 April 2023, Kim Dotcom publicly revealed that “Seth Rich contacted me and offered information about the DNC. I rejected receiving the data personally and forwarded him to someone close to Wikileaks. That’s how Wikileaks got the DNC and Hillary Clinton leaks.”

As my 20 December 2019 article had pointed out, . So, Murray did it, instead of Kim Dotcom. No Russians were involved.

In other words: Russiagate was an operation funded by Democratic Party billionaires against Republican Party billionaires, a contest in deceit, against the general public, the electorate: Which side will fool the larger percentage of voters and win the Electoral College?

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.