Facebook has long been a loyal ally of the US’ government’s censorship campaign, especially ever since the 2016 election of former US President Donald Trump and last year’s contentious one that resulted in Joe Biden assuming the presidency. It’s therefore taken many in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) off guard to see that a so-called “whisteblower” is now testifying before Congress in support of even more stringent censorship practices on that platform. What’s really happening is that the so-called “revolution” of last year is now proverbially “eating its own”.

To explain, “The Hybrid War Of Terror On America Was Decades In the Making” when it finally went kinetic last summer with Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” acting as the vanguard of this semi-secret “revolutionary” movement. Radical ideological forces inimical to America’s founding principles ultimately seized power through a complicated regime change sequence that creatively weaponized the syncretism of economic leftism and social fascism. I predicted shortly after last year’s election that “Biden’s America Would Be A Dystopian Hellhole” then followed up earlier this spring by raising awareness of his planned “Cyber Stasi”.

The “revolution” is now at the phase where it’s turning on its former allies like Facebook that are reluctant to go as all out as the movement’s leaders envision. This Big Tech platform is still a private company dependent mostly on advertising revenue so it has a self-interest in not completely censoring everything lest it lose more of its audience and the revenue that comes from them spending time on the site. This is why it hasn’t de facto banned all criticism of the “revolution”, its leaders, and their policies in order to still keep those dissidents around. That’s very threatening from the “revolutionary” perspective though because of emergent risks.

According to the so-called “whistleblower” who’s curiously represented by Jen Psaki’s PR firm and Eric Ciaramella’s legal team, Facebook not only profits from pushing self-destructive sentiments onto young women, but it also constitutes a national security threat after failing to stop the 6 January events. There’s already prevailing skepticism among conservatives that this person is really just a “revolutionary” puppet whose sole purpose is to make the case for the state to take control of Facebook and force stringent censorship upon it. That’s because the “revolutionaries” fear the consequences of dissidents being along to connect on Facebook.

That platform allows for extended dialogue between its members, including in closed groups, whereas its competitor Twitter only enables users to express themselves in up to 160 characters per post. Facebook can therefore be a useful tool for organizing peaceful resistance to the “revolution” whereas Twitter’s only real operative use in this context is to encourage the “revolution’s” so-called “flash mobs” (riots). Both can spew actual disinformation and be weaponized to that end by the “revolution”, but only the former can really help the actual “resistance” meaningfully organize while the latter just lets them share news and snarky remarks.

This explains why Facebook is under pressure and not Twitter. Both Big Tech companies are allied with the “revolutionaries”, as is Amazon, but only Facebook has the knives out for it because it’s the one that could potentially pose a latent risk for them. Twitter, as explained, is more of a left-wing tool that also allows the “resistance” to amusingly vent and share news as a pressure valve while Amazon doesn’t facilitate any interaction between its users. If anything, it structurally reinforces the “revolutionary system” that’s emerging whereby big corporations run by oligarchs take over more of the economy with the “revolutionaries’” support.

Had Facebook completely censored its users to de facto prohibit any anti-”revolution” dissent on its platform, then its objectively existing problematic behavior of amplifying psychologically manipulative content among youth and becoming a monopoly through its purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp would have likely been ignored by the “revolutionaries”. That, however, would have likely cut into its bottom line with time, something that its leadership wasn’t eager to have happen if it could help it. Facebook preemptively allied itself with the “revolutionaries” thinking this would protect it, but the movement wanted more so it turned against them.

The intent, as Glenn Greenwald astutely notes, is to “commandeer its power to censor”. The “revolution” wants Facebook to function as its “Ministry of Truth”, not only because of the power this would bestow them for strengthening their position at home, but also abroad. That’s why the so-called “whistleblower” also testified that Facebook supposedly promotes alleged genocides in Ethiopia and Myanmar on top of being exploited by Chinese and Iranian intelligence. The “revolutionaries” hope to weaponize Facebook through selective censorship in order to support regime changes and spread more disinformation against its rivals.

With its vast Big Tech monopoly stretching all across the world through its control of three globally prominent platforms, Facebook is the perfect Hybrid War weapon for the “revolution” to seize full control of. It could have fully surrendered itself and its economic interests to its “revolutionary” “allies” (read: planned overlords) in order to be saved but instead sought to retain at least a semblance of sovereignty in the face of their pressure. The “revolution” has zero tolerance for any form of dissent irrespective of whether it comes from an “enemy of the state”/”domestic terrorist” (dissident) or any “ally” like Facebook, hence why the knives are now out.

The “resistance” might soon have no choice but to complete their migration to other platforms like Gab and VK. As for those abroad be they regular folks or foreign governments who might rightly be concerned about the US government potentially taking de jure or de facto control over Facebook, they’ll also need to seriously consider leaving the site too. Those states that are capable of doing so can launch their own alternatives, but if their citizens are still reluctant to make the move, then they might coerce them to do so by either banning the site or find other means to pressure people into doing what they deem necessary in the interests of national security.

The overarching trend is that so-called “free speech” will likely become a thing of the past, not only on Facebook, but also on any of state-backed alternatives that might eventually be launched. Some private platforms like Gab and VK might still tolerate this concept to a large extent, but even they might eventually be pressured by one means or another by the US government into “compromising” on it, no matter how difficult it might be for the “revolutionaries” to do this in practice depending on their target. All of this bodes very negatively for genuine free thinkers and those who still treasure the concept of free speech.