For those who still think "the Deep State" is a deranged conspiracy theory invented in 2017 by Sean Hannity:
YouTube has been re-circulating a 2015 speech I gave at the Univ. of Utah at the height of the Snowden reporting. Here's what I said about secrecy and the security state:
The whole speech was about how the key point of the Snowden docs wasn't so privacy as much as the unaccountable power of the Deep State, which operates outside democratic structures. I described one document I viewed as most important: a secret interview with a top NSA official:
I'm not sure why YouTube suddenly re-surfaced and viralized this speech -- Google's algorithm-gerbils work in mysterious ways -- but it shows how the left fully affirmed that the Deep State/CIA was supremely pernicious. Russiagate changed all of that:
One of the most damaging aspects of Russiagate and the ongoing liberal union with CIA/neocons was it took a fundamental fact about US political life -- the dominance and supreme danger of the Deep State -- and turned it into a conspiracy theory no decent person should believe.🇺🇸
Even before our NSA reporting, the undemocratic threat of the Deep State was becoming mainstream. In 2010, the WashPost's 3-part series "Top Secret America" documented how massive it was yet nobody could control it. Russiagate converted them into heroes:
In 2014, LBJ Press Secretary and long-time left-wing media hero Bill Moyers aired a program on his PBS show titled: "The Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight."
It's stunning how the neocon/Dem/CIA union used Russiagate to convince liberals this is a fraud:
Here's the start of Bill Moyer's *2014* PBS program warning of the US Deep State and the unique dangers it poses.
Such an amazing feat of propaganda that neocons/CIA/Dems used Russiagate to erase it all and train liberals to think this is a fraud from Hannity in 2017. Watch:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Several critics volunteered. The first is now on Rumble. Steven Fritts voiced the standard left-liberal grievances: I go on Fox/Tucker, pander to the right on the "culture war," I changed my views, etc. Good discussion: judge yourself if those are valid:
There are 2 ironies to this. Before I could even post this new discussion, dreary Democrats -- led by one notorious for distorting videos -- spent today spreading out-of-context snippets of what I said: the exact coward-tactic this invitation to dialogue was designed to combat.
David falou muito no Flow sobre a tragédia da fome no Brasil: mais, como *ele é um dos poucos políticos que entende o que é isso pq ele passou grande parte de sua infância enfrentando isso*. Mas pq ele criticou levemente Lula, estão tentando difamar a defesa dele das animais:
A ONU advertiu que é impossível prevenir o desastre climático sem lutar contra os males das fazendas industriais. Bilhões de animais são torturados todos os dias por esta indústria. É imoral tentar zombar dessa causa.
Mas me diga: isso parece como alguém que não entende a fome?
Pode reconhecer as conquistas de Lula e respeitá-lo ao mesmo tempo em que entende que, como todo político, ele é um ser humano com falhas e críticas válidas. O grupo que acredita que quem critica Lula deve ter sua reputação destruída é uma seita cheia de malícia e doença.
That this article -- which everyone knows is false -- not only remains on the Guardian site, but remains there without any retraction or even Editors' Note, tells you all you need to know about the Guardian under @KathViner. They are 100% willing to lie if the target is right:
Relatedly: that the most hated person in US corporate media circles is the one who has broken the most major stories -- Julian Assange -- tells you all you need to know about the US corporate media. It's bizarre, but what they hate most are journalists who break huge stories.
Please remember -- as solemn and sanctimonious videos pass through your social media feed of western officials and think tanks condemning Bad Countries for assaults on press freedom -- that the US/UK continues to imprison Assange for publishing, with most of the media supportive.
It is impossible to overstate how repressive Google has become in its censorship regime on YouTube. Almost no establishment orthodoxies can be challenged. @0rf was long a pro-Bernie videographer and this is what he's enduring. Thankfully, Rumble exists to allow free discourse:
The excitement over the internet in the 1990s was it would liberate us from centralized state and corporate control, allowing us to interact with one another freely. Instead, thanks largely to employees of media corporations demanding censorship, Big Tech platforms are tyrannical
Here's @0rf's video report on the Rittenhouse case that Google decreed outside the bounds of permissible discourse, and thus deleted it from YouTube. You can and, I hope, will, watch the banned video on Rumble, where you can also follow his great work:
The claim that Joe Rogan -- a supporter of Bernie Sanders, an anti-imperialist, a crusader against factory farms, etc. -- is of the "far right" is the kind of stupidity in which liberals specialize: "let's try to expel the most influential media figure and insist he's our enemy."
Watch this brilliant @krystalball segment on the unspeakable stupidity of this tactic. Rational political movements try to *expand* the range of those who identify with them. The liberal-left so often looks for ways to expel as many people as possible:
Rogan has an audience of millions. You can't change that. The only choices you have: 1) engage with that huge audience to build common ground or 2) create a climate where nobody on the liberal-left can go there, ceding it all to the right. Those who *want to lose* chose (2).
Kyle Rittenhouse -- now free of all criminal liability -- did his first interview and said he believes systemic racism is a problem in the US and supports "BLM."
If you think this will cause anyone to reevaluate their decree that he's a "white supremacist," you'd be incorrect.
Rittenhouse has no reason to say any of this if he doesn't believe it. In fact, saying those things could undermine his self-interest, given that many on the right probably didn't want to hear them. There was never any evidence he was a "white supremacist" but that never matters.
There are very few accusations you can make about someone more serious than publicly branding them as "white supremacist" or "white nationalist." But in liberal discourse, especially media discourse, there is literally no evidentiary requirement that must be met in order to do it