The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints



“Conspiracy theory” is the go-to smear against those of us who questioned any aspect of the government’s authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once observed, the smear serves one purpose: to divert the public’s attention away from the truth.

“An attack on ‘conspiracy theories,’” Rothbard writes in “The Anatomy of the State,” means that the subjects of a regime “will become more gullible in believing the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions.”

The democratization of information means that censorship just doesn’t work as well as it used to.

“A ‘conspiracy theory,’” he continues, “can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”

The more I dig into the origins of the COVID pandemic, the more “despotic” our state seems to become — and the more “conspiratorial” I get.

Unsettling the system

I am trying to put together the final pieces of the puzzle of what I consider among the greatest public policy scandals of my lifetime — not only who did it, but more importantly, why would they do it?

A few months ago, I spent a day with Matt Taibbi, the iconoclastic muckraker and “Twitter Files” reporter, for the latest episode of my BlazeTV investigative series, “The Coverup.

As he dug through the trove of emails and texts, Taibbi discovered the conspiracy to blacklist and silence Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the subject of the first episode of “The Coverup” and now the head of the National Institutes of Health. Taibbi soon learned that the same tactics and tools — and even many of the very same deep-state actors — have their fingerprints all over both the Russia collusion hoax and the COVID cover-up.

A precedent for censorship

Recently released documents from Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the so-called Russia collusion hoax wasn’t just wrong — it was deliberate. The Obama administration orchestrated the fabrication, pushing U.S. intelligence agencies to leak a report suggesting Vladimir Putin had helped Donald Trump steal the 2016 election.

That leak, repeated endlessly by the press, fueled a national narrative branding Trump’s presidency as illegitimate — despite those same agencies having already dismissed the claim.

This kind of manipulation would be outrageous if it weren’t so familiar.

Five years after the COVID lockdowns stripped millions of Americans of basic liberties, we’re still uncovering how the deep state used propaganda to silence dissent. Throughout the pandemic, scientists and doctors raised alarms about the damage lockdowns would cause — and did cause. Some of the world’s most respected experts signed the Great Barrington Declaration to oppose the government’s heavy-handed response.

But the public never heard from them. Bureaucrats and media allies moved swiftly to smear, suppress, and sideline these voices using one of the oldest authoritarian tactics: control of information.

In fairness, public health agencies didn’t have to twist many arms. The legacy media followed their lead willingly — even when the guidance contradicted itself or defied basic logic.

But unlike the days of Project Mockingbird, when the CIA could shape coverage by nudging the New York Times or CBS, controlling the old guard wasn’t enough. The rise of social media — decentralized, fast-moving, and open to anyone with a computer or phone — posed a new challenge. The administration needed a more aggressive strategy to dominate the narrative.

Strong-arming social media

In episode 5 of “The Coverup,” I ask Taibbi how they pulled it off. As one of the first journalists to dig into the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed the machinery behind the censorship regime. Americans suspected that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were suppressing dissent during COVID. But the Twitter Files confirmed what many feared: They weren’t acting alone. They took orders from the FBI directly.

And these weren’t polite requests, either. When the government “suggested” something, tech companies treated it as a command.

It all traces back to — surprise, surprise — the Russia hoax.

In 2017, Congress hauled tech executives into hearings and accused them of letting Russian disinformation run wild. Essentially, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Allow the government to play a role in content moderation or prepare to be regulated into submission.

RELATED: On the 9th anniversary of Russiagate, the hoax is finally crumbling

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Their surrender gave U.S. intelligence agencies de facto control over what Americans could say online. The feds told platforms which posts to delete, which users to silence, and how to suppress the rest. You could post your opinion — as long as no one could see it. “Shadow bans” became the preferred method of censorship: clean, quiet, and deniable.

The silver lining

Thanks to Taibbi — and a handful of journalists who still value truth over access — we now see how the government sold Americans on fiction. Russia hacked the election. COVID came from a bowl of bat soup. Question either and you’d vanish from the digital public square.

Millions believed these lies. And under their influence, they did real damage — locking down schools, closing businesses, and sowing doubt about fair elections.

But truth has a way of leaking out.

It’s taken time, but the lies are unraveling. And that’s the silver lining. In a world where information moves faster than censors can keep up, suppression doesn’t work like it used to. So long as we have truth-tellers willing to dig and defy — like Taibbi — the regime won’t have the last word.

We won’t get fooled again.

Episode 5 of “The Coverup” premieres Thursday, July 31.

State Department Protects Americans’ Speech By Restricting Visas For Foreign Censors

The Trump administration’s targeting of foreign censors marks a significant departure from a Biden administration that coordinated global speech restrictions.

SCOTUS Punts On Constitutionality Of State Laws Constraining Big Tech Censorship

'So we vacate the decisions below and remand these cases,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

'You desperately want censorship': Elon Musk defends free speech as Don Lemon insists X needs 'content moderation'



Former CNN host Don Lemon sparred with owner of the X platform and entrepreneur Elon Musk over alleged hate speech on the app, which Lemon said is need of content moderation.

Lemon launched a talk show across most social media platforms after being fired from CNN in 2023. The first episode of "The Don Lemon Show" featured and interview with Musk inside a Tesla manufacturing plant.

After discussing Tesla and pressing Musk on who he will support in the 2024 presidential election, Lemon began a lengthy segment endorsing the idea that X is in desperate need of content moderation.

"These are just a handful of extremely ... anti-Semitic and racist tropes and tweets, and as of this morning they're still on X," Lemon said, while showing Musk printouts of offensive memes of varying degrees.

"We delete things if they are illegal," Musk replied.

"But these have been up there for a while," Lemon came back.

"Are they illegal?" Musk asked.

"They're not illegal, but they're hateful and they can lead to violence," Lemon decried, showcasing the crux of most of the former network anchor's argument. Lemon then cited studies purporting to show an increase in "hate speech" on X — which Musk refuted — and argued with the billionaire at length as to why the platform should have stricter controls on speech.

Musk took Lemon's remarks as an advocacy for censorship.

"So, Don, you love censorship is what you're saying," Musk asserted.

"No, I don't love censorship. I believe in moderation, but I don't believe in censorship," Lemon stated.

"Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship. ... If something's illegal we're going to take it down, if it's not illegal, then we're putting our thumb on the scale and we're being censors," the SpaceX operator explained.

Don Lemon wasn't interviewing Elon Musk; he was just promoting the mainstream media propaganda.\n\n\ud83d\udcf9 youtube/thedonlemonshow
— (@)

Lemon attempted to connect online "hate speech" to mass shooters across the world and the "great replacement theory," which he called a "Jewish conspiracy." Lemon complained that conspiracy theories have perpetuated on X, again due to a lack of content moderation.

Just when it seemed the two were going to move on from the topic, Musk reiterated that Lemon was advocating for censorship outside United States laws.

"You want censorship, and I don't," Musk insisted.

"No, I don't want censorship; I want responsibility," Lemon attempted to explain.

"You desperately want censorship," Musk retorted. "You want censorship so bad you can taste it. ... We have a responsibility to adhere to the law, and if people want the law changed, they should talk their elected representative and get the law changed, and then we will adhere to the law."

"You want censorship and I don't," @elonmusk tells @donlemon over and over he doesn't want censorship and believes in free speech in accordance with the law -\n\nLemon continuously rewords it as 'moderation':
— (@)

Lemon's new show was originally supposed to be an X-backed show, as part of a new lineup that included sports host Jim Rome and former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii).

However, Lemon reported that their deal had been squashed by Musk just hours after their sit-down was recorded.

Soon thereafter, it was reported that Lemon had made incredible requests as part of his contract, which included a podcast in outer space via SpaceX, a Tesla Cybertruck, a $5 million advance on an $8 million salary, and equity in the X platform.

Agent Jay Sures from the United Talent Agency told the New York Post that the allegations were "absolute, complete utter nonsense without an iota of truth to it."

X declined to comment on the details of the partnership.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Grading Elon Musk’s First Year At Twitter: 4 Major Wins But Much Room For Improvement

No doubt, there’s much work to do, but Musk has taken several positive steps in line with his initial commitment to restore free speech.

How A Terrorist Victim Can Help The Supreme Court Address Section 230

Big Tech takes a big interpretation of Section 230. The statute and the Constitution, however, suggest Big Tech has overplayed its hand.

Federal Court Determines Section 230 ‘Is Not License To Do Whatever One Wants Online’

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just fixed 230(c)(1), creating a conflict with the Ninth Circuit Court. Will the Supreme Court finally address the breadth of Big Tech immunity?

Musk says Twitter 'content moderation council' coming



Elon Musk, who has acquired Twitter, announced that the social media platform will establish "a content moderation council" and there will not be "major content decisions or account reinstatements" prior to when that panel convenes.

"Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes," Musk tweeted.

"Anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail," Musk wrote in another post. "Comedy is now legal on Twitter," Musk also tweeted.

\u201c@MikhailaFuller @jordanbpeterson Anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail\u201d
— Mikhaila Peterson (@Mikhaila Peterson) 1666918946

Musk, who has previously expressed a desire to turn Twitter into a place where people can engage in free speech within the confines of the law, said in a statement to Twitter advertisers on Thursday that the platform cannot turn into "a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences! In addition to adhering to the laws of the land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all, where you can choose your desired experience according to your preferences, just as you can choose, for example, to see movies or play video games ranging from all ages to mature."

Former President Donald Trump was a prominent Twitter user during his White House tenure, but the social media platform permanently suspended his account during the waning weeks of his presidency last year.

Musk has previously said that he believes banishing Trump from the platform was a "mistake."

"I don't think Twitter can be successful without me," Trump told Fox News Digital. "I am staying on Truth. I like it better, I like the way it works, I like Elon, but I'm staying on Truth," the former president said, referring to the social media platform Truth Social.

In response to Musk's announcement about the creation of "a content moderation council," Hans Mahncke, co-host of EpochTV's "Truth over News," noted that "Content moderation council sounds pretty Orwellian."

"Trump should be invited to be on this council," Jenna Ellis tweeted.

Alex Berenson, who was previously booted off Twitter but later reinstated, pushed back against the idea of content moderation on the platform. "My take: @elonmusk should accept that under California law - and the new 5th Circuit ruling - Twitter is a common carrier that must carry all legal messages/communications without restriction (child porn etc obviously would not be protected). No content moderation. The end," Berenson tweeted.

\u201cMy take: @elonmusk should accept that under California law - and the new 5th Circuit ruling - Twitter is a common carrier that must carry all legal messages/communications without restriction (child porn etc obviously would not be protected).\n\nNo content moderation. The end.\u201d
— Alex Berenson (@Alex Berenson) 1666988987

Facebook’s Top Censorship Board Is Filled With Elite, Power-Loving Bureaucrats

The board is made of elite academic and government employees who have demonstrated they give anything but an accurate and fair look at content moderation.