The Narrative Creators (Censorship Team) Under Joe Biden

Mike Benz explains what we were up against when Biden was super-charging the censorship industrial complex.

There's one person, but that person by themselves is not going to have enough pull to do what needs to be done. That person is the wonderful Sarah Rogers. Sarah Rogers is great. She gets it, you get it. She gets it now. Sarah Rogers is the Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs branch. Yes, one person, and she's an undersecretary. Okay, so think about all the agencies that need to be deployed to take this on.

Let's pull up the list. Okay, let's pull up a list of all the different government agencies that the Biden White House coordinated to create the global censorship industrial complex. This was a full scale inter agency. The Biden White House created an interagency task force, and it was called the information integrity research and development interagency working group. Information Integrity, as we've covered many times, became the preferred phrase after the catastrophe of the disinformation governance board. Nobody knows what the fuck information integrity means.

Who doesn't like information with "high integrity?" How bad could it be? It's the worst. This term means that information can be chunked into two categories, high integrity meaning whitelisted, and low integrity, meaning blacklisted, meaning censored. So information integrity is total control over information, what information you can share on social media, what information can be amplified in algorithms, what information we want foreign countries to make illegal if it supports a political party that we don't want to win the election, etc, etc. So this task force set up in 2021 right away in the Biden administration, made it so that every one of the below US government, federal agencies and departments had the same policy goal they were driving towards, censoring Vaccine Information, censoring election information, censoring climate information, censoring gender information, censoring foreign policy opinions about Ukraine, etc.

Okay, you have your Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, controlling the media, the White House, Domestic Policy Council, DARPA DHS, the Justice Department, The State Department, the FBI NIST. Hello, 911. pancake theory. NIH, the National Science Foundation, the National Security Council, the NSA, goddamn Office of Naval Research, the White House, OSTP, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the ODNI, the friggin Surgeon General's office, USAID, all the way down, down to the damn Census Bureau for censoring immigration information, the gender Policy Council, the Food and Drug Administration, they were all coordinated top down by the White House. ... then it tied together a bunch of civil society partners to help create this whole of society on the outside, including our favorites like Stanford, UW Rutgers, the home of Antifa, nonprofits, corporations, individuals, all answering to this task force, like fucking news guard and Bill Burns, the CIA director's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aspen Digital, who ran the Hunter Biden censorship pre censorship strategy meeting to pre censor the Hunter Biden laptop story all the way down to the American Association of Retired Persons. This thing hit every demo, black, white, old, young, gay, straight, cis, trans, CIA FDA,

You know what we've got right now, guys, and I'm sorry to say it, I'm not trying to black pill you. I'm trying to white pill you. That you. A tiny little glimpse of a fire is being started. We'll see where it goes. We know we have against all of this, the CIA, the NSA, the ODNI, the State Department, fucking DARPA, Naval Research, every friggin agency, the Justice Department, the FBI, against all this a trade, every intelligence agency, military and statecraft organ of the United States government. For us on the other side, I offer, I offer a fair trade. I offer we but we have a Sarah Rogers. That's where we are right now.

Continue ReadingThe Narrative Creators (Censorship Team) Under Joe Biden

Epstein, Power, Money, Ubiquitous Corruption

We are being kept in the dark. We elect what is really a pretend government. The majority of the people calling the shots lurk in the shadows. We've always known that big donors and corporations have an outsize influence on our politicians, but it's much worse than we suspected. It's now clear that at least hundreds of rich and powerful people worked with Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of the US security state and the Israeli government. This has been true through many administrations, as evidenced by recently released documents connecting Jeffrey Epstein's power and money to the Clintons and to Obama's WH Attorney Kathryn Ruemmler. It involves many of the DNC's most powerful funders: Reid Hoffman, Glenn Dubin, Tom Pritzker, Leslie Wexner and Bill Gates. as well as some of Trump's highest-placed people, including Howard Lutnck, Steve Bannon, William Barr and Alan Dershowitz. It involves many hundreds of documented incidents where your voice as a citizen has been nullified. You did not vote for this corrupt and degenerate plutocracy. Nor will you ever be given the opportunity to get rid of it by any sort of vote. The people who have really been in charge don't care about you or me. They laugh at our Constitution.

And have you ever noticed how there are so many news media narratives that run counter to common sense? Those narratives are being driven by corrupt power and money.

I never thought I'd say this, but the U.S. government is more than corrupt. Our country has been completely occupied by unelected people (many of them operating through NGOs) who make many of the biggest decisions, including in the areas of domestic policy, public health, finance and foreign policy. In the area of foreign policy, we already knew this from years of US obeisance to the Israeli government's political arm, AIPAC, especially evidenced by our willingness to pour unlimited $ into wars at the direction of Israel. All of this has become distressingly more clear based on the recently released Epstein files. It is equally clear that we haven't yet seen the vast majority of the Epstein documentation. Most of Epstein's data has been meticulously and obediently redacted or withheld from U.S. Citizens by unknown people on behalf of their unknown bosses. See the post/video below (by Shadow of Ezra) for more on that.

An investigation has found that the Department of Justice has released just two percent of the material the FBI seized from Jeffrey Epstein’s properties.

The report says Epstein’s electronic devices, including computers, hard drives, and servers, are largely missing from the files made public.

It concludes that the three million and even six million figures shared with the public represent only a fraction of what authorities actually possess.

You might think that what I have written sounds crazy. I would agree with you that this sounds completely crazy. If you are brave and courageous, however, visit X, search for "Epstein" and start reading the who's who list of all the rich and famous people who have been exercising their political muscle in the shadows. The more you read, the more you will appreciate the courage of a handful of our elected representatives who know that we the citizens have a right to know what has been going on. Thank you to Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Nancy Mace, who led or supported the bipartisan discharge petition and legislation to compel the Justice Department to disclose the Epstein files.

Continue ReadingEpstein, Power, Money, Ubiquitous Corruption

Jimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

Bill Maher (to Adam Corolla):

Jimmy Kimmel, you know he's very mad at me, and I know you're close to him. I help you tell him that, you know I'm sorry that you know he they got bent out of shape. I don't think I did anything wrong. We can have disagreements. I agree you and I don't agree on everything. Look at this clash now, and yet we're cool (Bill Maher and Adam Corolla), like the Republicans are always.

This is the difference between the right and the left. It bugs me so much. My tribe is supposed to be the left, but these are the people who just can't talk to you unless you're exactly there, whereas the Republicans, they always fucking come to my show. John Kennedy from Louisiana, right? was on last week, took his beating like a man, like they all do, and we came across lovingly and smilingly and happily. And we can disagree when you and I aren't always completely on the same page, although we're very close because we're both smart guys. But like, I just don't get that from Jimmy. I'm sorry. Like, I think he is one of the nicest guys. I did a mea culpa when we exchanged emails, not about what he was complaining about, but just saying, like, you know, sometimes I am a little brash about me when they compare me with the other late night guys.

And I'm not like, you guys. I'm not. You could all exchange your monologs, all of you, and no one would know the difference in tone, okay? Whereas me? I'm not there. I don't just buy into the left wing bullshit, and I never stop making fun of the right wing bullshit at all right? If that's not good enough for you, then I think you're the asshole. And I don't think Jimmy is an asshole. No, I think he's a great guy. And it bugs me . . .

Jimmy Kimmel is an excellent proxy for what has happened to many people on the Left. I'm not referring to all people who lean Left, but a significant sub-set. I know many of them. I've been de-friended by more than a few. This subset utilizes a litmus test. If you don't check all of their boxes, they see you as the enemy, as a republican, as a nazi, as a threat.  But time for a reality check: All people disagree with all other people on at least some things and, usually, many topics. It is fantasy to assume that any two people align on every topic and sub-topic of the day. Emphasis on sub-topic here.  Immigration, transgender, foreign policy, public assistance, race relations, social justice and every other "topic" is actually a big complex basket of subtopics.  Every one of these subtopics invites nuanced conversations involving minor or major disagreements.

Take for instance, the big basket of topics falling under the label of "transgender." As I have written often, I think every adult should be allowed to do anything they want with their own body and they must be respected, honored and invited to associate with any other person and to fall in love with anyone they choose. Many people on the Left , however, demand absolute obeisance, telling you that if you don't chant exactly like they do, in unison, exactly when and where they chant, you must be kicked out of the friendship. There are many important sub-issues to transgender that should be considered individually. For instance, A) Whether society should change its language to accommodate the alleged (and perhaps real) pain of other people B) whether people who identify as transgender should be treated equally under the law, C) whether it is OK for grade school math teachers to talk about sex with students without their parents' knowledge and consent, D) whether confused children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries (including mastectomies), "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones that leave them permanently disfigured and/or sterile, E) Whether a minor can meaningfully consent to permanent changes to their bodies that render them sterile, F) The extent and type of psychological counseling a minor should undergo before being allowed to engage in transgender surgeries and drugs, G) the extent to which social contagion accounted for the rise (and more recently the fall) in minors declaring that they are "transgender."  Whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women's sports, H) whether it is biologically true that trans women are women, I) whether it is OK for a state government to take children away from their parents when state employees disagree with parents on transgender issues, J) Should males be imprisoned along with women, even though rapes and pregnancies are now being reported in those prisons (see here)? K) Whether "LGBTQIA+" is a meaningful descriptor for a a singular community, given the the inherent conflict among those referred to by the letters?  I could go on and on.

There are many other sub-issues to "transgender" topic that I could list. For instance, J.K. Rowling has listed a dozen of these sub-issues in her Sept 1, 2025 post on X. I would bet that many people who lean Left would agree with Rowling on many or most of the issues she lists. Yet she has bee labeled a "terf" and threatened with death on many occasions.

The way the topic of "transgender" splinters into countless sub-issues is true of every political and social issue. Anyone being honest knows that, as a country, we face hundreds, potentially thousands, of sub-issues.

This much is indisputable: Every person disagrees with every other person on many of the countless sub-issues of the day.  It is impossible for any person to lack any disagreement on some of the sub-issues of the day even with their closest and most loyal friends.

During the Great Awokening, we were falsely convinced that when a friend disagreed with us about an issue or sub-issue it was a personal attack, not a mere disagreement. We started disparaging maxims like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." And this one: "To each his own."  The need to express disagreement is embedded in the Constitutional foundation of the United States. That is why our Founders have a brilliantly devised set of checks and balances for resolving or compromising our inevitable differences.

Anyone currently claiming that they have friends who completely agree with them is not talking about someone they really know.  They are not talking about actual friends. They are referring to a relationship steeped in dishonesty, based on fear of speaking openly.

I challenge anyone reading this to ask themselves this question: Am I willing to keep loving and engaging freely with friends who disagree with me on some topics and sub-topics? If not, you don't have real friends. Instead, you are starring in your own Truman Show, self-imprisoned in a social cage.

Luckily, you've got the key to you own liberation. [More ...]

Continue ReadingJimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

Limited Hangout Week re Epstein “Disclosures”

If the phrase "limited hangout" is not yet part of your vocabulary, it's time to add it to your repertoire. Grok offers this definition:

A limited hangout is a strategy, often used in espionage, politics, or public relations, where a partial truth or selected information is disclosed to the public or investigators to prevent the discovery of more damaging or sensitive facts, effectively acting as a form of damage control when a full cover-up is no longer viable. The term originates from CIA jargon, as described by former official Victor Marchetti, who explained it as admitting "some of the truth when tight lips have slipped" but withholding the key details to mislead further inquiry.

Here is the only thing you can do to make sure you are not a victim of limited hangouts: Repeatedly ask: "What else have you not yet told me?" Ask this repeatedly, especially when dealing with people, government officials and corporate news outlets you have previously trusted. Consider these recent examples:

DOJ under Pam Bondi redacted a photo of Benjamin Netanyahu with Jeffrey Epstein from the files.

Redactions are admittedly an imperfect way of engaging in limited hangouts, but they work well enough often enough, given the limitations of human attention and memory.

DNC mega-donor Reid Hoffman was mentioned 2,600 times in the Epstein files. David Sachs: "The NYT story on Epstein & Silicon Valley has paragraphs on Elon, Peter Thiel … Reid Hoffman barely gets mentioned despite having the deepest Epstein relationship and having lied about it."

New York Times forgot to mention that one of its own reporters worked closely with Epstein well after Epstein was a known child sex trafficker. And see here.

The DOJ briefly uploaded — then removed — an 86-page document titled “Investigation into Potential Jeffrey Epstein Co-Conspirators.”

Amidst all the chaos, Rep Thomas Massie emerges: with some common sense:

Rep. Thomas Massie says he’s ready to use the nuclear option if the DOJ refuses to un-redact the names of Epstein’s clients. He warns he will simply start reading Epstein’s client names publicly if Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice does not release them. “If the victims want to give them to me, I’ve expressed that I’m willing to do that.” See also here.

Continue ReadingLimited Hangout Week re Epstein “Disclosures”