The Three Stages of Integration Into the Neoliberal Order

How the U.S. Systematically Transforms Nations into Debt-Dependent Puppets

The U.S. has a long history of supporting foreign regimes and later overthrowing them, a pattern that continues today. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks reveal that this behavior is part of a deliberate strategy to transform countries into neoliberal slave states, controlled not by military means but through international debt. Their three-step approach allows the U.S. to control nations indirectly, moving from direct colonialism to economic subjugation.

"The modern implement of imposing slavery is debt." - Ezra Pound

The U.S. has a strange pattern to it’s foreign policy: it has historically supported loyal regimes all around the world and then, from time to time, it suddenly yanks the rug out from underneath the regime and overthrows it. This pattern continues to this day. The question for this post is: Why would it do this? Is it simply shifting politics, perhaps different administrations with different alliances, is it Great Power schizophrenia, deliberately playing both sides, or is there something more to it?

Before attempting to answer this question, let's examine a few historical examples of this behavior:

• Latin America: The U.S.’s involvement in endless regime changes in Latin America is well known. Noriega, Allende, Monroy, the list is long…

• China: In 1949 the communists took over China with the help of deliberate Washington meddling.  Chiang Kai-shek, a faithful nationalist ally of the U.S., was trying to establish a constitutional republic, but General Marshall demanded that Chiang accept the communists into his government or forfeit U.S. support.  Marshall also negotiated truces that saved the communists from imminent defeat which they exploited to regroup and seize more territory, and slammed a weapons embargo on the nationalist government. Thanks to the embargo the nationalists ran out of ammunition.  Congress voted to send $125 million in military aid to Chiang but Truman held up implementation until China collapsed. On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy declared before the House of Representatives:

  "Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government."

  He reaffirmed this in a speech five days later, concluding: "This is the tragic story of China, whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away."

• Iran: In 1953 the CIA backed the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh with the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the replacement after Mossadegh tried to nationalize the oil industry. But in January 1979 U.S. General Robert Huyser was sent to Iran to prevent Iranian military leaders from orchestrating a coup to save the Shah (also see here):

  That day, Carter dispatched General Robert E Huyser, Deputy Commander of US Forces in Europe, to Tehran to tell the Shah's generals to sit tight and "not jump into a coup" against Prime Minister Bakhtiar….

  Once there, Huyser was tasked with taking the temperature of the military's top brass and convincing them to "swallow their prestige" and go to a meeting with Beheshti [Khomeini's second-in-command in Iran]. The US believed such a meeting would lead to a military "accommodation" with Khomeini.

  To help break the stalemate, President Carter swallowed his own prestige. On the evening of 14 January, US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance sent a cable to US embassies in Paris and Tehran: "We have decided that it is desirable to establish a direct American channel to Khomeini's entourage."….

  Establishing a direct link with Khomeini was a highly sensitive matter; if revealed, it would be interpreted as a shift in US policy, a clear signal to the entire world that Washington was dumping its old friend, the Shah.

  Rurik Skywalker
  has a good post outlining how compromised Iran is to this day.

• Iraq: In Iraq, US intelligence helped Saddam Hussein's Ba`ath Party seize power in 1963 as part of its general offensive against radical Arab nationalism. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959. The CIA later helped Saddam Hussein gas Iran by exploiting a key weakness in their ongoing war. Later the U.S. attacked Iraq twice, overthrew and executed him.

• Egypt: In 2011, protests from the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew Hosni Mubarrak, the president of Egypt and staunch U.S. ally as part of the so-called “Arab Spring”. The revolution was sponsored covertly by the State Department; for example Wael Ghonim, one of it’s key organizers, met with State Department and then Google executive (and close friend of Eric Schmidt, co-authoring a book together) Jared Cohen right at the very start of the protests (lamely denying that it was related). National security expert Mike Benz tells a fascinating tale of how the State Department used social media to inspire revolutions, including the “Arab Spring”, until the 2014 Donbass/Crimea elections, after which they realized that social media could be used by the enemies in the same way they used it to inspire their own revolutions¹ and then after Trump’s surprising 2016 win they turned against those tools.²

These examples just scratch the surface of this repeated behavior. Why would the U.S./State Department/CIA support regimes, then betray their loyal allies in favor of something else? Julian Assange (who I previously covered here and who is now out of prison³) and the Wikileaks organization have an answer for this puzzling question in their interesting The Wikileaks Files (2016), and it’s an answer that is not well understood. Wikileaks arrives at certain unsettling conclusions from analyzing many hundreds of thousands of confidential State Department cables which reveal underlying patterns in how the Department interacts with foreign governments. The revelation of these patterns would set Wikileaks as a primary target by our elites for subsequent targeting for imprisonment and destruction.

---

The three phases of neoliberal slave-state integration

Wikileaks’ answer to the question of why is that there is a very specific, conscious strategy being employed by the State Department and CIA. Their strategy is to transform countries around the world from nation states (as that term is traditionally understood, with leaders who answer to their populations and focus on national interests) to hollowed-out slave states subservient to the financial international order, controlled not by military means but rather by sophisticated debt mechanisms. This is akin to neocolonialism but broader and applies to countries that have never been formally colonized. This transformation occurs in three phases which are region dependent; some places go through the phases faster than others. These phases are:

• Phase 1: Install strongman. Develop friendly client regimes who will create a national security apparatus willing to crack down on domestic dissent.

• Phase 2: Stability. Encourage regimes to develop an industrial base which can sustain stable political authority without allowing an opening for populism.

• Phase 3: Market liberalization. A transition to “market oriented” economies based "on “democracy” and the Washington Consensus which can be controlled through neoliberal debt mechanisms.

Per Assange,

At the heart of postwar US policy-making is the doctrine of liberal internationalism. Pioneered by Woodrow Wilson [NLF: the Federal Reserve was established under his watch] and embellished by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, this doctrine is generally understood as the justification of military and other interventions by the US if they help produce a liberal world order: a global system consisting of liberal-democratic nation-states, connected by more or less free markets and ruled by international law. In this world-view, the goal of achieving a liberal world system trumps the commitment to state sovereignty. The US sees itself as the natural vanguard of such a global order, as well as the chief bearer of any right to suppress state sovereignty in the pursuit of liberal goals.

For example, we can look at Iran: it’s gone through Phase 1 (Shah and then the Mullah strongmen, development of national security apparatus to crack down on domestic dissent), Phase 2 (development of the country), and now it’s on Phase 3 (CIA-backed encouragement of internal dissent, neocons pushing for war with Iran to crack it open and turn it over to international market forces). The Soviet Union also went through these three phases ending with glasnost and perestroika, it’s assets stripped and sold to international Jewish interests leaving a hollowed out country controlled by international financial elite-puppet Putin. South American countries are universally at Phase 3; we can see it with looking at Argentina or Mexico’s current leaders and their practices, for example. Alternatively, our elites tried transitioning Egypt from Phase 2 to Phase 3 but failed, and it reverted as a result.

Rurik Skywalker

covered these three phases in this solid post, which is worth a read.

Any country which attempts to back-out of this process will be invaded or destroyed (Gaddafi, Saddam), as wars to ensure dollar hegemony and globalist control are one of the three types of wars that our elites engages in. The best a country can do is to turn into a hermit kingdom like Belarus, North Korea, or Burma before the phases are initiated, but it just buys an element of time; it is not a permanent solution. Lukashenko in Belarus was almost overthrown in a coup, North Korea has come close to being attacked by the U.S. numerous times, and Burma is in the process of being hollowed out.

Let’s go into detail on each of these phases.

---

Phase 1: Install Strongman

The first phase involved setting up a strongman who will crack down on the international elite’s enemies and build out a national security apparatus:

In a global market dominated by the US, supporting national governments in place that were open to US investment was more important than becoming a colonial overlord. Profits could flow back to Wall Street without the debilitating costs of occupation. To achieve this world order, however, the US would need to prize open the colonial empires….

The chief concern of US officials during [Phase 1] was that “premature independence” might lead to a new freedom for people as yet unfit to govern themselves. Given this unfitness, they might not commit to building liberal capitalist states integrated into a US-led world market, instead preferring politically immature “populist” or radical solutions. They might even, in some cases, “go communist.”

As a leading American expert on African populist, William J. Foltz, wrote in 1966, it would take more than a few generations to teach the majority of black Africans “the skills necessary to participate meaningfully and effectively in politics.” Therefore, if a further period of tutelage at the hands of white colonial masters was not possible, the “modernization theory” of US state mandarins held that these people would require a period of authoritarian rule under enlightened military regimes.

Therefore the US supported the Mobutu regime in the Congo, dictators in South Vietnam to avert Viet Minh rule, dictatorship in South Korea, the Indonesian general Suharto to open the country to US investors, the House of Saud, Egyptian dictatorship to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The U.S. would train local forces loyal to it’s installed leaders to take over military duties so it would not be burdened with long-term occupation. As Walter LaFeber argued: “The United States had hit upon a solution to its traditional dilemma of how to inject force to stop revolutions without having a long-term commitment of US troops. The answer seemed to be to use native, US-trained forces that could both pacify and protect the country.” Having a worldwide network of military basis to exert indirect control helped, too:

---

Phase 2: Stability

After the strongman was installed the next phase involved building out national industry:

A new phase was opened up by the Cold War, in which the United States sought to encourage regimes to develop an industrial base and a prosperous middle class that could sustain stable political authority without creating an opening for leftist movements. This was linked to the development of a global series of institutions known collectively by the name Bretton Woods, after the location of the conference at which they were launched. These included a global monetary system in which currencies were pegged to the gold standard, and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, set up to enable the development of world trade. The prevailing orthodoxy was that national states could intervene extensively in economic affairs to support and develop productive industry. In this period, the US intervened frequently in Latin American affairs, but much less through the traditional military means than through covert CIA-coordinated interventions to bolster the national security apparatuses of friendly governments, and to sabotage movements and governments that threatened US interests.

I would add that the role of the strongman was more than just setting up a national security apparatus and developing productive industry in order to suppress populism. The role of the strongman was to do whatever it took to suppress populism, including waging war and other measures. For example, the Iraq/Iran war and other initiatives such as family planning restrictions served a broader goal of bleeding off nationalist fervor and speeding the process of collapsing domestic birthrates. i.e.:

And:

---

Phase 3: Market liberalization

After a strongman was installed who created a national security state to suppress populist unrest, and after they stabilized the country by modernizing it to the extent necessary, the strongman’s role was finished and it was time to transition to a parliamentary democracy which would be easier to control with market forces:

The third phase was signaled by the collapse of the Bretton Woods system amid a global economic crisis, and the American adaptation to defeat in Vietnam and a series of related crises in its rule. The outcome, following a protracted and violent process of reorganization, was a form of rule predicted on the liberalization of markets, capital controls, and regulations on finance and labor. Rather than encouraging the state-coordinated development of industry, the IMF pursued “structural adjustment,” using debt as a mechanism to incorporate Latin American states into the global economy. Market dependency would exert its own disciplinary mechanisms, as unfriendly policies could be “punished” by capital flight, or ruled out of bounds by global institutions. This involved reorganizing national elites, reducing the power of protectionist oligarchies, and - once leftist movements had been defeated by a tornado of CIA-orchestrated violence - encouraging them to rule through parliamentary institutions. With some outstanding exceptions, such as Plan Colombia and the Venezuelan coup, the United States was largely able to withdraw from military and paramilitary interventions, and let markets do the talking.

Often times the shift from Phase 2 to Phase 3 would catch the victim dictator off-guard; he was doing what his masters wanted, he was loyal, so why would they overthrow him? It didn’t make sense to their worldview which, although they could be ruthless and aggressive, would never plunge to the depths of twisted, black thinking required to understand this strategy. With respect to Iraq, "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been strongly supported by the United States in its invasion of Iran after the overthrow of the shah, and facilitated in its brutal war against the Kurds. But the regime was still predicated partly on Arab nationalism and heavy state involvement in the economy, and the moderation of hostilities with Iran meant that Iraq's usefulness was drawing to an end.” More than the invasion of Kuwait, it was Saddam’s declining influence as well as his attempt to trade oil for Euro instead of dollars - a red line for the U.S. regime - that spelled the end of his rule.

During this phase the establishment uses various methods to get the targeted country hooked on international debt: “US economic aid and IMF loans were used as levers to win support for opening up these economies to global markets, superseding the import-substitution model of industrial development. They therefore became dependent on imports, and repeated balance-of-payments crises only deepened their dependence on IMF-organized loans, and thus their acceptance of their associated conditions - including the whole package of neoliberal reform dubbed ‘structural adjustment.’”

This indirect control was much more manageable and much less costly to our elites than former direct colonization. The effect was the same or even better due to increased profitability:

In the post-Cold War world, the reigning world-view was that liberal capitalist democracy was the ultimate terminus of history, the endgame to which all states tended. And the more America’s “backyard” was integrated into the world system, the more it opened its markets, allowed public goods to be privatized and run by US firms, and the more it signed up to global and regional trade treaties, the less need there was for direct violent interventions. The political form of dictatorship often became more of an impediment than an asset, and the United States was even willing to offer limited support to some pro-democracy movements, provided they were congruent with the overall goal of expanding “free markets” under the direction of strong states.

Because the international financial elites controlled the Soviet Union as much as it controls the United States, the same process worked in a similar way in countries dominated by it. For example, despite Vietnam winning the war against the United States it was rapidly integrated into the global economy without any subsequent war being fought:

Through the 2000s, over a quarter of a century after US defeat to the Viet Minh, WikiLeaks' disclosures show the US embassy in Hanoi charting with some satisfaction the Vietnamese government's incorporation into US-led globalization. That included laying the foundations for accession to the WTO, engaging in market-led reforms and privatization programs, and willing submission to IMF orthodoxy and compliance with all necessary prerequisites for participation in IMF structural adjustment programs. Such programs are notorious for the effects they have on national economies and for the ignominious nature of dependency they generate between debtors and creditors: in short, debt bondage….

Why did the Vietnamese government, nominally a socialist one that had defeated the American empire in a horrifying war, accede to this? The short answer is that the new Politboro's attempt to reconstruct the economy of a unified Vietnam on a statist basis after the devastation of war was simply untenable in an increasingly integrated and competitive world economy. The attempt to make a rational allocation of economic resources and to plan efficiently turned out to be too difficult. In a global economy in which the price fluctuations of almost all goods and services were under no one's control, and in which Vietnam was often isolated, it was practically impossible….

In short order, since Vietnam owed over $1 billion in debt, the IMF offered its services and, of course, recommended the same policy mix as it recommends to all would-be debtors: cut subsidies, remove price controls, remove exchange and capital controls, privatize and let the market rip. The classic debt trap was initiated. The more Vietnam borrowed from the IMF, the more it needed to borrow, and its rate of indebtedness soared. The more it adopted "free market" policies, the more dependent it was on markets and the less able it was to apply controls.

The philosopher Jean Baudrillard agreed with this understanding, although he also linked the Vietnam war to the pacification of China, where he wrote in Simulacra and Simulation (1981):

The [Vietnam] war, at bottom, was nothing but a crucial episode of peaceful coexistence. It marked the arrival of China to peaceful coexistence. The nonintervention of China obtained and secured after many years, China’s apprenticeship to a global modus vivendi, the shift from a global strategy of revolution to one of shared forces and empires, the transition from a radical alternative to political alternation in a system now essentially regulated (the normalization of Peking-Washington relations): this was what was at stake in the war in Vietnam, and in this sense, the USA pulled out of Vietnam but won the war.

And the war ended “spontaneously” when this objective was achieved. That is why it was deescalated, demobilized so easily.

This same reduction of forces can be seen on the field. The war lasted as long as elements irreducible to a healthy politics and discipline of power, even a Communist one, remained unliquidated. When at last the war had passed into the hands of regular troops in the North and escaped that of the resistance, the war could stop: it had attained its objective. The stake is thus that of a political relay. As soon as the Vietnamese had proved that they were no longer the carriers of an unpredictable subversion, one could let them take over. That theirs is a Communist order is not serious in the end: it had proved itself, it could be trusted. It is even more effective than capitalism in the liquidation of “savage” and archaic precapitalist structures.

Same scenario in the Algerian war.

The other aspect of this war and of all wars today: behind the armed violence, the murderous antagonism of the adversaries - which seems a matter of life and death, which is played out as such (or else one could never send people to get themselves killed in this kind of thing), behind this simulacrum of fighting to the death and of ruthless global stakes, the two adversaries are fundamentally in solidarity against something else, unnamed, never spoken, but whose objective outcome in war, with the equal complicity of the two adversaries, is total liquidation. Tribal, communitarian, precapitalist structures, every form of exchange, of language, of symbolic organization, that is what must be abolished, that is the object of murder in war - and war itself, in its immense, spectacular death apparatus, is nothing but the medium of this process of the terrorist rationalization of the social - the murder on which society will be founded, whatever its allegiance, Communist or capitalist. Total complicity, or division of labor between two adversaries (who may even consent to enormous sacrifices for it) for the very end of reshaping and domesticating social relations.

This reminds me of the scene in the mediocre movie The International about how a country is controlled in the modern era by debt, not by outright military control:

In Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, Kwame Nkrumah wrote:

In place of colonialism, as the main instrument of imperialism, we have today neo-colonialism...[which] like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries....

The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment, under neo-colonialism, increases, rather than decreases, the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is also dubious in consideration of the name given being strongly related to the concept of colonialism itself. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.

The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.

It also reminds me of this strange Argentinian president Javier Milei, who our international financial elite-controlled media raves is slashing costs - which he is doing by slashing government spending and “deregulating” in order to pay it’s international debts, while it’s poverty levels surged to a 20 year-high of 57%. I guess it also doesn’t hurt media support that he seems to be in some process of converting to Judaism.

---

Conclusions

We are often led to think by the insanity we see in the media and the incompetent politicians we see on television that the United States and it’s upper elites are not rational actors, but this is mostly an illusion for rubes. Yes, there is a general decline in our elite’s effectiveness due to a combination of increased “diversity” and women in the workforce, as well as increased political correctness and increases in laziness and societal despair — and especially because it has been on top unchallenged for so long. But there is a real method to the madness, a highly sophisticated apparatus of worldwide control which is deliberately concealed from the public. The most important thing to ask yourself is why: if world actions don’t seem to make sense, if they seem contradictory and self-defeating, it is not proper to assume it is due to incompetence; our international financial elites have been on top for too long to have that be the baseline assumption. Dig deeper.

Here, our elites brilliantly transitioned from a system of direct colonization to an indirect system based on neoliberal debt practices. Just as this process plays out on a national level, it also plays out on an individual level where most people have no savings and are controlled by their debt (house debt, student loans, credit cards). Slavery and control never ended; it merely took on an indirect form where people wouldn’t realize they are controlled.

I hope this is a little eye opening.

Thanks for reading.

PS: Because the U.S. and Britain are controlled by the same central bank owning elite, they utilize the same strategies to achieve neoliberal control. In a future post I will cover the ruthless and highly controversial British counter-insurgency general Frank Kitson and how the tactics he used toward crushing populist uprisings served as a precursor for the initiation of Phase 1 toward neoliberal debt control.

1. From here: “Now, the high watermark of the sort of Internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in 2011 2012, when you had this one by one, all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online. During those periods, there was a famous phone call from Google's Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election. So free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all the ngos, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbass broke away. And they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary Chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014.

And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the Internet. In the eyes of NATO as they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Durasimov doctrine, which is named after this russian military general who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed. You don't need to win military skirmishes to take over central and eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem, because that's what controls elections. And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it's infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media. An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the british Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit. Essentially infrastructure that was created, initially stationed in Germany and in central and eastern Europe, to create psychological buffer zones. Basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies, to censor russian propaganda or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.

So you had the systematic targeting by our State department, by our IC, by the Pentagon, of groups like Germany's AfD, the alternative for Deutschland there, and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now, when Brexit happened in 2016. That was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn't have to worry just about central and eastern Europe anymore. It was coming westward, this idea of russian control over hearts and minds. And so Brexit was June 2016. The very next month at the Warsaw conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they were deemed to be russian proxies. And again, it's not just russian propaganda. These were now Brexit groups, or groups like Mateo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now, at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia. It's losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap russian energy at a time when the US was pressuring this energy diversification policy.

And so they made the argument after Brexit. Now the entire rules based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media, because Brexit would give rise to Brexit in France with Marine Le Pen, to spexit in Spain with the Vox party, to Italy. Exit in Italy to Gregson in Germany to Grexit in Greece. The EU would come apart, so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired. And then, not only that, now that NATO is gone, now there's no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, or the World bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the Internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War II would collapse. So you can imagine. Wait. May I ask you to pause the 2016 election?

You just told a remarkable story that I've never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the State Department pause for a moment and say, wait a second, we've just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries? I think that's what you're saying. They feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way and they went to war against.”

2. From here: "Google Ideas renamed itself Google Jigsaw to develop what was previously a DARPA-funded program to use something called natural language processing, an AI technique to examine words to assess the political topography of different kinds of narratives," Benz explained. "The dialect of an idea, almost the way academic jargon gave rise to a sophisticated dialectic Marxism, there is a similar thing with respect to MAGA or ISIS. If you can train your model on that ideology, you can use that for content moderation purposes in highly sophisticated and targeted ways."
"Jared Cohen at Jigsaw, immediately after the 2016 election turned this DARPA-funded project, originally funded by the DOD to look at the ways ISIS was recruiting, they turned it on three sets of political training data -- the 2016 election and Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and the Brexit party, and climate change."
"They ended up rolling that out to the social media companies, it ended up becoming standard, and then there became a gold rush to develop more and more AI domestic censorship superweapons for control over political discourse."

3. Although subject to who-knows-what types of restriction as part of his plea deal; he did publicly speak for the first time recently.