Telegram CEO’s arrest unveils Europe’s march toward totalitarianism

August 28, 2024

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

Pavel Durov’s arrest in Paris has scared the CEOs of other pro-free speech platforms — and rightly so.

French-Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov founded Telegram in 2013, following Russia’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 2011. Now one of the largest communication tools in the world, Telegram uses encryption, similar to Signal, to prevent bad actors — whether individuals or corrupt governments — from tracking your communications. Telegram is central to everyday life in places like Russia, Ukraine, and India. In fact, Russia had a problem with the app because Ukrainians were using it for military communications. That’s how secure the encryption is.

You would expect societies that claim to champion freedom of speech and privacy to embrace this app, while totalitarian governments that want to control their people's private communication would do everything they could to ban it. Yet it wasn’t Russia, Iran, or China that targeted Durov — it was France.

They are coming for Musk, they are coming for Rumble, and they are coming for you. This is not about your digital safety. It is about their quest for power.

Authorities arrested Durov at an airport in Paris earlier this week. The Russian embassy in Paris demanded an explanation from the French government. In response, the French government stated that Durov “was detained by the National Anti-fraud Office over the alleged facilitation of various crimes, including terrorism, narcotics, trafficking, and fraud.” They further accuse him of “allowing an incalculable number of offenses and crimes to be committed” on Telegram “for which he did nothing.” In short, they are charging Durov as an accomplice to the crimes others have committed while using his app.

In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media companies from being charged as accomplices to most crimes committed on their platforms. Though French and European law doesn’t fall under Section 230, their double standard for platforms that comply with their censorship campaigns is clear. For example, “60 Minutes” reports that New Mexico's attorney general is accusing Meta and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg of enabling child sex abuse and trafficking on its sites. According to the attorney general’s undercover investigation, Facebook and Instagram's algorithms created a marketplace for the sexual exploitation of children, and Meta enabled adults to find, message, and groom minors, soliciting them to sell pictures or participate in pornographic videos.

Will France hold Mark Zuckerberg accountable for enabling child pornography on his platform? Why was Durov arrested for crimes that Meta has repeatedly been proven to facilitate? Could it be because Durov’s product counters government censorship, while Meta has openly complied with it?

Europe has been rapidly metastasizing into a global center for censorship, and the EU's Digital Services Act was the final nail in the coffin of what’s left of free speech on the continent. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley rightly called the Digital Services Act “one of the greatest threats to free speech that we have today around the world,” forcing social media companies to flag and report content that the EU deems harmful.

Shielded in dull, bureaucratic language, the Digital Services Act empowers the globalist EU government to censor any speech as it sees fit. It emboldens people like Margrethe Vestager, a Danish politician serving as executive vice president of the European Commission for “A Europe Fit for the Digital Age,” to threaten Elon Musk’s X with fines for refusing to comply with its censorship packaged as EU “guidelines."

Europe has been rapidly metastasizing into a global center for censorship.

Durov’s arrest has scared the CEOs of other pro-free speech platforms, and rightly so. Rumble founder and CEO Chris Pavlovski said, “I’m a little late to this, but for good reason — I’ve just safely departed from Europe. France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.”

“Rumble will not stand for this behavior and will use every legal means available to fight for freedom of expression, a universal human right,” Pavlovski added. “We are currently fighting in the courts of France, and we hope for Pavel Durov’s immediate release.”

Elon Musk is also concerned. “It is vital to the support of free speech that you forward X posts to people you know, especially in censorship-heavy countries,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter). He's saying that X posts are going to be hidden in countries like France, and the only way you can see them is if a person from a non-censored country directly sends them to you. Is Facebook held to this standard of censorship too?
Alexander Vindman, who was a key witness against Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial, said this in response to Durov’s arrest:

While Durov holds French citizenship, is arrested for violating French law, this has broader implications for other social media, including Twitter. There’s a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo [and] malign influence [and] a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be nervous.

That’s a threat, coming from a Democratic candidate for Congress no less.

Is there really a growing intolerance for platforming “disinformation”? There may be within the elite ruling class but not with the American people.

This year at Blaze Media, we are breaking multiple records in our company’s history. We have a bigger impact now than when I was at Fox News. This is especially astonishing given our Facebook numbers. We can’t get any traction on Facebook, but this is not a new battle. It always silences our voice, and your voice, during an election season. And it’s only going to get worse.

Durov’s arrest is not an isolated issue. We have felt the rumblings of Europe's seismic shift toward censorship for years, but Durov’s arrest is the first major crack in the ground. The ruling elites want you to fall through the cracks along with him until they and their cronies are the only ones left above ground. They are coming for Musk, they are coming for Rumble, and they are coming for you.This is not about your digital safety. It is about their quest for power.

Editor's Note: This post was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Glenn's Show Prep