Questioning the FBI's role in 1/6 was maligned by corporate media as deranged. But only ignorance or a desire to deceive could produce such a reaction.
To keep fear levels high and the US security state's powers and budgets even higher, FBI has been doing this for decades.
A top FBI official has *admitted* in a little-noticed comment -- part of a documentary about an FBI attempt to entrap "terrorists" in 2009 -- that the FBI needs constant terror threats and plots to keep fear levels high and its own power unquestioned. Look:
Just three weeks ago, the security-state-worshipping sector of corporate media mocked and derided those of us who questioned what the FBI's role was in the groups that plotted 1/6. Yet now, the @BuzzFeed exposé on how the FBI drove the Whitmer "plot" made the same connection:
Given this long history and mountain of evidence, it doesn't take an unhinged conspiracy theorist to interrogate FBI's role in 1/6.
It takes an ignorant servant of the US security state (i.e., liberal journalists) to declare such questions off limits:
I spent a decade reporting on FBI's manufacturing their own terror plots -- by implanting agents who manipulated young American Muslims into plots FBI created -- and the liberal-left never objected. Many cheered.
Now, denouncing the same tactic against the Right makes you QAnon.
And I was far from the only one reporting on and denouncing the FBI's orchestration of their own plots that they would then flamboyantly boast that they "broke up" -- to keep fear levels, budgets & spying powers high. It was a common theme in left media and from the @ACLU.
So again, anyone who asks me "what happened to you?" should instead look in the mirror and ask it of yourself.
I've always found the US security state's manufacturing of terror plots pernicious, and I haven't changed that view because of who the target is. It's *you who changed.
And as I noted yesterday, you have to be very ignorant and/or dishonest to claim it's insane to think FBI purposely stokes terror plots to keep fear levels high. Read what a federal judge said about what the FBI did to James Cromitie, an impoverished Black Muslim, to entrap him:
FBI did this during the Cold War, too -- infiltrated groups to lure people into crimes based on their ideology. That's COINTELPRO. They did it during first War on Terror. We know they're doing it now against anti-government activists on the right:
There are only 2 things that have changed: 1) liberals now revere FBI, CIA and the security state generally after Trump because they see those agencies as their allies; 2) liberals are authoritarians who *want* their political adversaries imprisoned. So they like this FBI scheme.
You can see the rise of liberal/Dem authoritarianism in this one 2019 Gallup chart. The two parties have almost completely switched sides on their views of the FBI since 2003: with Dems now overwhelmingly positive about FBI and GOP far more untrusting:
Yale's "Fascism expert" Jason Stanely -- Yale's "Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy" (does anyone now who that is?) -- explains why he's fleeing the US in fear withYale's Timothy Snyder and his wife Marci Shore -- to Canada, which he calls "the Ukraine of of North America."
He says Canada is Ukraine beacaue it's a bastion of freedom and nobility threatened an by authoritarian neighbor.
The absolute narcissism and melodrama of these people: there are those whose civil liberties are threatened. Celebrated, rich Yale professors are not among them.
Extra gross that Snyder is very wealthy by heralding himself the world's leading warrior against fascism. His book implores others not to "anticipatorily obey" Trump.
2 months into Trump's term, he flees the US as if he's an underground #Resistance leader in occupied France.
If Joe Biden had announced that any private universities that allow criticism of him or Dems shall immediately lose all federal funding -- while keeping the funding if they allow criticisms of Trump -- would that have been constitutional since no school has the right to funding?
How about if Biden cut off all federal funding to universities that deny the validity of the trans identity or the existence of multiple genders -- on the ground that such teaching incites violence against trans people and is hate speech?
Would that have been constitutional?
The only tactic needed to induce support for censorship is train people to believe the views they hate are violence.
Anti-trans activists are inciting violence and calling for genocide, etc.
Opponents of Israel's war on Gaza are calling for genocide and must be censored, etc. etc.
During the Dem primary campaign, one of RFK Jr.'s core issues was free speech and opposing censorship. Then he became known for wanting to combat chronic disease.
So what does he use his first month for? Threatening universities which allow protests against Israel on campus:
Note: you're free to protest the US on campus. You can protest any country or group: just not Israel.
And of course this censorship - like all censorship - is justified the name of stopping hate speech and keeping one group "safe": as if they're being relentlessly attacked.
Every government in the world -- including the most repressive and tyrannical -- "protects free speech" for the views they like.
It's the views they most hate that are targeted. And the most sacred issue for many in the Trump Admin is Israel: that is what's therefore shielded.
There's nothing stopping Germany or the EU from funding war in Ukraine until the end of eternity if they wish, or sending their citizens to Ukraine to fight Russia.
But the German Greens -- the worst of the worst -- are emblematic of European liberals: all posturing, no action.
British pundits prance around as if they're Churchill, and Macron walks around like he's a tough guy, and German Greens and other vague Berlin liberals posture as if they're the paragon of compassion: all while they rely on the US to finance wars, fight and protect them.
Zelensky begged and begged Westerners to get off line and stop tweeting with their blue-yellow emojis and instead go to Ukraine to help them fight the Russian Army, knowing he couldn't win without non-Ukrainians volunteering to fight. Very, very few did.
For a long-time, harsh critiques of US foreign policy and interventionism were found on the populist right. Listen to Pat Buchanan (who worked for Nixon and Reagan) as well as Ron Paul on US policy toward Israel. Very, very few Dems now speak this way:
In February 2021 -- more than a year before Russian troops entered Ukraine en masse -- the inspiring democrat, President Zelensky, banned 3 popular opposition TV networks by accusing them of spreading Russian disinformation.
It'd be as if Biden banned Fox or Trump banned CNN:🇺🇦
In 2014 -- after Victoria Nuland, @ChrisMurphyCT, John McCain etc. used NED to fund protests in Kiev to remove the democratically elected leader and replace him with an unelected pro-US puppet -- Kiev began bombing ethnic Russian civilians in Donbas:
@ChrisMurphyCT It's bizarre to watch history re-written in real time to serve war propaganda: how Azov Battalion was described as neo-Nazi by western elites, only to be turned into heroic warriors the minute we armed them.