Mike Benz: DARPA & USAID are Weaponizing Music to Control Human Behavior

Simultaneously, the CIA was involved in classical music diplomacy through initiatives like the Congress for Cultural Freedom. They sought to demonstrate Western cultural superiority by sponsoring music and arts conferences throughout Europe, counteracting Soviet cultural influence. This early use of music as a political tool laid the foundation for later intersection points between music, intelligence, and soft power operations.

Government Sponsorship in Music

As political music evolved, so did governmental involvement. The U.S. government covertly supported rock and roll during the Cold War, exporting anti-authoritarian messages across the Iron Curtain, using massive concerts near the Berlin Wall as tools for political mobilization. Later, rap and hip-hop emerged as the new frontier for cultural influence, with agencies like USAID and the CIA directing funds and resources toward specific rap collectives abroad.

Benz cites Cuba's Santa Cedro Collective as a prime example. Through National Endowment for Democracy grants, U.S. entities funded rap groups promoting anti-government sentiments designed to incite rebellion and unrest, with efforts including setting up fake social media platforms to distribute opposition messaging. These programs illustrated how music, coupled with social media manipulation, serves as a frontline tool in modern information warfare and regime change operations.

Music as a Mobilization Tool

Music serves not only as entertainment but as a unifying organizing principle in political struggles. Benz explains that in conflict zones or politically unstable regions, music acts as a "shared language" that bridges divides among disparate opposition groups, allowing people with vastly different views to unify under a common cultural banner opposing the ruling government.

The Yugoslavian Otpour movement of the 1990s exemplified this tactic. Various factions who otherwise might never cooperate were rallied together via politically charged concerts and underground music scenes fostered and supported covertly by Western intelligence. This pattern repeats globally, with music-filled protests enabling "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy that undergirds many Western-backed regime change efforts.

The Role of USAID

USAID and NED function as essential yet often invisible weapons in this cultural warfare framework. Conceived as ostensibly independent nonprofit entities, both are deeply intertwined with the CIA and the State Department, funneling taxpayer dollars through NGOs and music initiatives to destabilize foreign governments considered adversarial.

Benz provides evidence of USAID funding activists and musicians involved in unrest across Bangladesh, Cuba, and Latin America. Such grants are strategically targeted to minority or youth populations, exploiting societal grievances through culturally potent art forms like hip-hop. These complex funding operations enable the U.S. to maintain plausible deniability while exerting outsized influence through cultural proxies.

Military Support for Music

Benz highlights an unusual nexus between the military-industrial complex and cultural sectors. Large-scale music festivals and performing arts centers, such as South by Southwest and Miami's Adrienne Arsht Center, receive substantial backing from Pentagon-affiliated think tanks like the Atlantic Council, which have strong CIA affiliations.

This patronage operates on the premise that "politics is downstream from culture." By sponsoring influential music events and venues, the military and intelligence communities embed themselves into global popular culture. These sponsorships enable them to subtly shape public opinion and cultural narratives, creating an environment more receptive to geopolitical agendas.

The Usage of Popular Music Icons

Prominent artists like Taylor Swift and Bono figure into these covert influence campaigns in complex ways. Benz details how Taylor Swift's catalog was acquired by a private equity group with links to the Iraq War profiteering Carlie Group and George Soros, inserting her music within a broader political influence framework. NATO's psychological operations center has even cited Swift as an "opinion leader" to be mobilized for strategic messaging.

Similarly, Bono's activism, though portrayed as humanitarian, has been connected to efforts that unintentionally or otherwise facilitated violent conflicts, with funds channeled through humanitarian efforts diverted to CIA-backed warlords. Such use of celebrity culture deepens the reach of intelligence operations into mass audiences under the guise of popular entertainment and philanthropic causes.

Digital Censorship

Starting as early as 2014 with the establishment of the State Department's Global Engagement Center to combat ISIS propaganda, the U.S. has developed an extensive apparatus to monitor, direct, and censor information online. NATO's Stratcom Center of Excellence in Latvia, co-partnered with companies like Graphica, applies AI-based network mapping to identify and suppress "disinformation," focusing intensely on right-wing and populist movements.

This digital censorship network, coordinated with the Pentagon, DHS, and intelligence agencies, has evolved into a global operation targeting narratives deemed subversive. The emphasis on information control underscores a paradigm shift in warfare from traditional military might to domination over media ecosystems and public perception.

The EU's Digital Censorship Act

Facing the constitutional limitation of the First Amendment in the U.S., government-sponsored censorship operations have increasingly relied on international regulatory frameworks. Benz explains how the European Union's Digital Services Act imposes mandatory censorship compliance on social media platforms operating in Europe, backed by enormous fines which compel U.S. companies to submit to external oversight.

These foreign legal regimes enable intelligence-linked operatives and NGOs to operate inside the platforms, dictating content moderation policies. The U.S. government, through entities like the Atlantic Council and National Endowment for Democracy, regards these mechanisms as crucial for circumventing domestic free speech protections and reinforcing global censorship compliance.

The Censorship Industrial Complex

An intricate web of government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and private corporations—collectively dubbed "the censorship industrial complex"—has institutionalized control over digital and cultural narratives. Benz points out entities such as NewsGuard, Globsesec, and the Knight Foundation, which conduct extensive research, create blacklists, and fund censorship initiatives under the guise of media literacy or fighting "disinformation."

This ecosystem collaborates closely with federal bodies like the DHS, CIA, and State Department, as well as with tech giants. By leveraging algorithmic moderation, AI analytics, and funding streams, these institutions influence not only foreign populations but also domestic political discourse, shaping what is deemed acceptable speech.

State-Level Laws for Speech Control

Amid federal rollbacks and exposure of widespread censorship abuses, Benz notes a strategic shift toward sub-national regulation within the states. Blue states like California, New York, and Michigan increasingly pass "hate speech" and digital literacy laws that enforce platform moderation through government mandates, effectively extending censorship through regulatory coercion.

These state-level laws operate as decentralization points for continued control, often embedding ideological blacklists and restricting access to alternative media, including established resources like Wikipedia. This trend represents a legal and bureaucratic workaround to federal limitations on speech suppression.

The Threat of Digital ID Systems

The conversation moves into the dangers posed by merging digital identity systems with information control. U.S. and allied entities have experimented with "state and smartphone" digital IDs in countries like Ukraine, integrating health, banking, voting, and social media data. While intended for administrative efficiency, these systems facilitate comprehensive surveillance and political repression by enabling instantaneous identification and blacklisting of dissenters.

Benz warns that the World Economic Forum and influential industrial figures like Larry Ellison are pushing similar digital ID frameworks domestically and internationally. Such control grids, once in place, threaten to undercut democracy and freedom by enabling micro-targeted censorship and control over citizens' political participation.

The Struggle for Freedom of Speech

Closing on a reflective note, Benz emphasizes the fragility and complexity of the current speech environment. Though censorship apparatuses have lost some federal footing with political changes, international and state-level pressures persist, risking the erosion of free expression. He identifies the necessity of maintaining robust coalitions cutting across ideological lines to defend speech freedoms.

Moreover, Benz underscores internal tensions within these coalitions, pointing out conflicting interests—such as technocrats and billionaires supporting repressive digital ID projects versus grassroots advocates—threaten unity. The battle ahead is both technological and political, requiring strategic, principled, and coordinated resistance to preserve open dialogue and democratic norms.