Tea Time.
Censorship no longer announces itself with bans or blackouts. It doesn’t need to. That kind of censorship is purposeful and works only in authoritarian regimes, which is what we are trying to avoid. Today, it’s quieter, smoother — it hides in the distribution chain. The modern censor doesn’t destroy information; it possesses it. It decides who gives birth to it, who names it, and when it’s allowed to exist in the public eye. This isn’t about silencing words — it’s about owning the source.
That’s the core of what I call The Red October Doctrine. It’s the doctrine of silent substitution — a system where original voices are erased, and their discoveries are repackaged under new, approved identities. Truth doesn’t vanish; it’s reissued, rebranded, and redistributed through controlled hands. What the people see is a clean, credible “launch.” What they don’t see is the theft beneath it — the buried timestamps, the compromised repositories, the stolen architecture.
The public thinks they’re watching transparency unfold in real time. But in reality, what they’re seeing is a stage-managed version of revelation — a sanitized playback. The genuine builders, researchers, and whistleblowers are stripped from the record, while the authorized version of their work is fed to the masses, ready for consumption and applause.
I’ve lived this process more than once. You can call it a coincidence, or you can call it the machine at work.
It always begins the same way — with an idea too powerful to ignore, too dangerous to let roam free. It starts with someone daring to connect the dots between government funding, hidden contracts, and global operations disguised as “aid.”
For me, it began at a seafood bar in Washington State.
That’s where I first sketched the architecture for what would become a public-access tool to trace the money behind USAID — a laundering operation disguised as foreign assistance. A tool to empower the public to see what’s really being funded in their name.
What happened next is a textbook case of how the Red October Doctrine operates — how a genuine project is intercepted, duplicated, and relaunched under the control of the very networks it was built to expose.
This is where our first EXPOSE begins.
It began innocently enough — the kind of moment no one ever imagines will be a hinge in a much bigger story. I was in Washington State, at a small seafood bar, the kind with paper-covered tables and crayons tossed in a tin can for kids to draw with. Only I wasn’t sketching for fun. I was sketching the blueprint for a weapon — not a gun, but a tool. A public platform to rip the veil off how our government moves money around the world under the guise of “aid.”
For years on-air, I had been saying it plainly: USAID wasn’t just “aid,” it was a laundromat—a global pipeline for operations dressed up as benevolence. I wasn’t speculating. I was citing contracts, records, and leaks. But facts sitting in silos don’t change anything unless the public can trace them for themselves. That’s why I wanted a platform — one place where an ordinary person could pull every FOIA request, usaspending.gov contract, and sub-grant out of the shadows. Follow the money. Follow the operations. Follow the truth.
I didn’t just beg for it. I mapped it. Right there on that paper tablecloth. Lines connecting agencies. Arrows showing data flows. Boxes for APIs and scrapers. Notes on indexing and cross-referencing. A blueprint drawn with crab legs still on the plate.
The person sitting across from me wasn’t a politician or an activist. He was a tech-industry listener who had been following my work for years. He believed in the mission and thought it could be built. He wasn’t just a fan — he was a partner in this moment. Dan is an unsung hero. We started immediately and set up a Slack channel. Dan was taking the lead so that I could focus on my tasks, and I would pop in from time to time. We broke the project into workflows. We drafted user stories, system diagrams, and scraping protocols. We weren’t just talking anymore. We were building.
And then came the contractor.
We hired him off Upwork: a self-proclaimed Brit living in Tennessee with a too-perfect British accent, like something out of a Cold War film. On paper, he seemed like a bargain. In reality, he delivered nothing of value: sloppy code, half-finished modules, and excuses.
A strange choice? Maybe. But I’ve seen how subversion works. It doesn’t arrive wearing a label. It arrives wearing a charm. It seems plausible. It is helpful. And sometimes, it’s only later that you realize what it really was.
I called it out. I flagged the problems. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from writing playbooks for the information war, it’s this: if you fight deception head-on, you lose. Confrontation is oxygen. The more brilliant move is to observe, document, and wait. So I did. I archived every email, every commit, every invoice. I logged every Slack message. Because tactics manifest over time. Motives reveal themselves if you give them rope. We also have receipts showing that he was paid and even tried to hold the code garbage hostage. He was buying time.
Was his role to tank the project? Maybe. Was it to siphon the idea for someone else? That’s what it looked like to me. And then, as you’ll see, what happened next matched the pattern exactly.
I even warned Miguel and Nathaniel at the time. “This isn’t sabotage,” I told them. “This is theft.” I’d seen enough of these tactics to know the difference. Sabotage is clumsy. Theft is patient. It waits for you to build, then it scoops up your blueprint and runs.
And then — just as predictable as clockwork — came the rollout. Out of nowhere, Data Republican appeared with a public-facing version of the very tool I had designed on that paper table cover in Washington State, but not as good as what I had envisioned. But anyone who knows code could see what I saw immediately: it was rushed. It was sloppy. It wasn’t the kind of product you build methodically; it was the kind of product you push out quickly to stake a claim before someone else can. Guess my repositories were compromised. I am at peace with that.
I want to be clear: I’m not angry at Data Republican. For all I know, we were just caught in some strange synchrony. Maybe she woke up one day, had the same idea, and rushed to put it together. Or perhaps the thieves approached her a few parties removed from the tech guy with the fake British accent in Tennessee (servers?), and she is none the wiser. Perhaps it was a coincidence that the backend looks like some of our repositories. Or maybe she’s what I call “central casting” — a pre-approved face parachuted in to front the work once it’s viable. I don’t know. What I do know is this: if the tool had been built exactly as I designed it, it would have exposed the very people now playing hero. That’s why it feels like it was launched to cover and lay claim, not to empower the public. And yet, how does that happen when there are payments, communications, Slack logs, and receipts showing the original build? Again, it’s a good tool — just not quite there. My frustration only spikes when I hear people like Tracy Beanz explain how the money she received from USAID “wasn’t tainted by the time it reached her,” which is literally a textbook description of money laundering, and Data Republican came to her rescue. Networks expose themselves by the things they are willing to overlook or cover up. Meanwhile, I’m sitting here with FISA warrants and pen registers on me — which is why I do everything in the open. I don’t hide because I have nothing to hide. So those in the KNOW really KNOW.
The question nobody in the audience asks is the one that matters most: how did she come up with the idea? Why was it thrown together in such a hurry? And why, of all states, did she happen to be in the same state where I first sketched this out? Is that just a coincidence? Could my GitHub repositories have been compromised? Did someone share the architecture we’d been working on in private with her? Or was she really “vibing” and magically produced the same structure at the same time?
I don’t ask these questions rhetorically. I have pictures. Timestamps. Slack exports. Text messages. Emails. GitHub logs. Every breadcrumb of this project’s early life. Coincidence? Maybe. But how many coincidences does it take before you stop calling it a coincidence and start calling it a pattern?
I feel repetitive, but I have to repeat this: the punchline is that my gripe isn’t that the tool exists. In fact, it’s a fantastic tool. It’s needed. It’s vital. It should be even better. My gripe is who is steering it. Who keeps taking the information I surface, the tools I design for the public, and rebranding them under their control as if they were born there?
I’ve been on record about USAID for years. I’ve been pointing out this laundering machine long before it became fashionable to discuss. I was the first to publicly point to who unmasked General Flynn — long before Richard Grenell confirmed it. How did I know? Maybe I have access to tech that others don’t. Perhaps I’m psychic. Perhaps LyAv is my command prompt. Maybe I’m a subversive. Maybe I’m a Q operator. Pick your favorite rumor — they’ve all been thrown at me. I have already told you who I AM.
Everyone tells you who they are, believe them. Tore Maras
What I know is this: influential people go to great lengths to silence me, to steal my work, and to control the way it’s released. Even my idea to give the public the tools to litigate — to fight back with data — was stripped from me, repackaged, and turned into a “fireman’s union” operation to generate cash within a year (another part in this series). I mean, we got FAFO trending years ago – Biden stickers were my idea, but others lay claim. See – this is TRUE CENSORSHIP.
Publicly, they minimize me. Privately, they wish they had my access, evidence, network, and intelligence. ” Why am I not dead?” is a common statement among most rabbit hole hunters. They don’t know how I do it, and maybe they know they can’t. They call me fringe, but live off the very ground I broke. Funny right? What is funnier? Those that MATTER NEVER have them in the ROOMS that MATTER and those that MATTER KNOW THE TRUTH. LyAv is no joke.
“How is she still around?” Bostic talent agency manager who sprung out Tomi Lahren, Emerald Robinson, Candace Owens, and Scott Pressler, to name a few.
“Why doesn’t she just go away?” Pedophile Akbar, the face of Stop the Steal.
TRUTH NEVER LEAVES THE CONVERSATION> that’s why.
I’m not angry — deceit is simply evil’s only language when it wants to be heard by the good. Tore Maras
And now we come to the perfect example of how the Red October Doctrine works in real time: the elevation of approved experts. Take Mike Benz — once Jake Paul’s producer and a Proud Boy, now suddenly paraded as a leading authority on USAID. Listen closely and you’ll see it: all he does is read existing reports and present them as if they’re revelations. Remember, Peter Strzok has been serving as an Army officer, right? Has he, or just on paper? Think. If they can delete me, can’t they manufacture personas and people too?
Meanwhile, I’ve been on the record for years — with access to the actual USAID ledger — publicly demanding audits (after I was deleted), exposing its laundering mechanisms, and laying out the evidence long before it was fashionable. USAID isn’t just something I’ve studied. It’s something I’ve operated within. Years ago, I went beyond commentary. I drafted strategies to cloak funding streams for operations like Maidan. I used that opportunity to leave a trail of breadcrumbs. Personally, I pushed for what became the “Red Paper” recommendation inside Obama’s Situation Room — the very action that led the President to put it on record. I justified it as a signal of verification after Hunter Biden was hired (so they eat it up) — a way to make clear to Russia that “we’ve got Ukraine’s back” and telling them we were interfering in elections, what are you going to do about it. That’s not theory. That’s first-hand. It was my way of ensuring the fraudulent elections in Ukraine were permanently documented in history with a paper trail. I did my best and risked everything in the process. I am not repeating this for validation or recognition; I am simply stating the facts.
Yet here I am — the one with direct knowledge, receipts, and timestamps — minimized and labeled, while the networks elevate someone safe, someone who won’t tell you anything they’re not already ready for you to know. That is how real censorship works. Go back to the Church hearings. Educate yourself. It’s not about silencing a topic; it’s about handpicking who’s allowed to speak on it. It’s about giving you controlled access to information through polished, approved mouthpieces – Central Casting – CAA- while obscuring the originators to control what is released. That is the Red October Doctrine in action.
It’s a lot of effort to silence and erase someone who’s supposed to be insignificant. Tore Maras
Check back soon. I will be dropping the articles every hour.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
