THREAD. In Trump's speech to an unprecedented gathering of generals, he announced he was preparing to order them to use U.S. "cities as training grounds for our military." I want to highlight a few other bone chilling statements and put them into context that media obscures.
First, although it didn't get as much coverage, Trump also said the U.S. is facing "a war from within" against "the enemy from within." This essentially declared to military leaders--who Hegseth had just essentially told he would be purging of disloyalty--a new civil war.
Second, Trump specifically added that this "war" was something the "people in this room" (i.e. military generals) would "straighten out" in domestic deployments to cities run by Democrats "one by one." He added: "inner cities" are "a big part of war now. It’s a big part of war."
The pretext for this is supposedly crime. As I've noted, the levels of government-recorded crime tracked by police/FBI are at historic lows. The narrative is entirely false, and no serious person thinks that Trump's actions result from a passion for safety, law, and liberty.
This declaration of an intent to pursue what amounts to a civil war comes on the heels of alarming developments too numerous to name, including, just to name a tiny selection:
In these remarks to generals, Trump also referenced his attempt to create a new army of vigilante Brownshirts.
It is in THIS context that leading Democrats, pundits, and the most "respected" liberal news organizations--PBS, NYT, NPR, MSNBC--are fomenting absurd "flat earther" misinformation about "crime." Unless these institutions change fast, we are in grave trouble as a society.
Over several months and years, I've identified numerous false, misleading, and embarrassing statements by Democrats and news outlets. Two themes are: 1) accepting as accurate/good faith Trump's statements about "crime"; 2) validating that repression is the best response.
Each of these two themes is like climate science denial. Focusing on police-reported crime is a mistake if you truly care about all forms of violence and safety, but even that narrow range Trump is focusing on is DOWN to historic lows.
Also, overwhelming scientific evidence shows that more surveillance, armed government agents, and imprisonment is not an effective way to address such violence. Every single news report should hammer these points, not validate the contrary misinformation.
There is a scientific consensus that levels of interpersonal harm in a society are determined by levels of inequality/poverty and things like early child-hood education, access to healthcare/housing, isolation/loneliness, community institutions, culture/demographics, etc.
In Copaganda, I showed how silly/unstrategic conventional liberal wisdom on crime is. Polls last week confirmed it: there's big support across political spectrum to invest in safety thru education, health, housing, community institutions, etc. + reduce punishment bureaucracy.
Every poll I've seen that asks the question shows support to reduce spending on punishment bureaucracy in favor of these investments. It's popular. (And polls themselves are skewed b/c only people with $$ purchase them, design the questions, and choose what context is given.)
Instead we get story after story of Democratic politicians and pundits essentially saying: everything Trump says is true, he's SO right! But the difference with *us* is that we just want to be the ones who control the apparatus of government repression:
If you validate your opponent's mythologies but promise to be slightly less good at making frightened people feel better than your opponent, you will lose. Any everything, including the possibility of living, is lost.
We don't have much time left. Everyone within these institutions has to put aside their defensiveness and accept responsibility. Center your heart with the most vulnerable and your mind on the truth, and then relentlessly speak that truth before it's too late.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD. I happened to be in Portland yesterday to give a university lecture as Trump called it “war ravaged Portland” while illegally ordering the deployment of the U.S. military to use “full force.”
This kind of outrageous misinformation would not be possible without the culture of fear spread for years by the mainstream media. He is playing on the prodigious ignorance and irrational fear cultivated by the way the news media distorts our sense of safety.
Portland, needless to say, is nothing remotely like what Trump describes. But the mass media has created an entirely delusional public perception of what threats we face and from whom.
THREAD. PBS recently aired a dangerous news segment, full of misinformation. The incident is not only embarrassing for PBS and Democrats, but it portends dark days for the future of our society that it was published. People at PBS should be doing some deep soul searching.
First, the article is a mind-boggling interview with the Democratic New Mexico governor. She validates and increases hysteria about street crime at the same moment such crime (which was and is down) is the precise (and false) pretense of national authoritarian takeover.
Worse, the reporter (cheering along like an AI-bot) lets Governor do it at a time of near-historic crime lows in New Mexico. Even worse, reporter lets her demand more authoritarian repression as a solution to fear, despite the evidence that this is like flat-earth stuff.
THREAD. I don't know what there is left to say about the New York Times and Democrats, but documenting their support for fascism still feels important. If there's any chance to walk back from the fascist cliff, we must see why things like today's article are so dangerous.
The article today is premised on the idea that--while some Dems are uncomfortable with Trump deploying military to cities without consent--they want more federal resources (even military) to flood their cities for surveillance, police, prosecution, and prison.
As with any article, ask yourself: Why is this a news story? Who benefits from it being news, from how it's framed, from what info is included and what is ignored? Always look: who are sources quoted, and which perspectives are ignored? Take a look at the sources in order:
THREAD. For over a decade, I've been working across the country to challenge unconstitutional cash bail. So, why is Trump trying to entrench it?
The for-profit cash bail industry exists only in U.S. and Philippines. Even though you're presumed innocent, you're stuck in a jail cell while you wait for your day in court if your family doesn't have cash to pay a private company to secure your release.
Basing bodily liberty on a person's access to cash destroys millions of lives. It makes us all less safe. It's unconstitutional. But it makes a lot of people a lot of money, and it gives huge leverage to prosecutors and police to force people to plead guilty in low-level cases.
THREAD. Today's article by New York Times reporter Devlin Barrett is a good example of how bad journalism can normalize authoritarianism. Let's look at a particularly egregious example.
These two paragraphs tell you a lot about the failures of contemporary journalism. Among many problems here, and with the article generally, I will highlight two huge ones for now.
First, through its choice of sources, lack of skepticism, and failure to provide contrary evidence or context, the article suggests that not letting stormtroopers illegally search and brutalize ordinary people "could hamper crime-fighting efforts for years to come."
THREAD. A subtle but pervasive propaganda technique is when the news adopts as the *actual* motive the *stated* motive of people in power.
Nobody with any knowledge or experience thinks Trump is in good faith taking over the DC police and mobilizing the military to “fight crime.” Indeed crime is at historic lows and “violent crime” is down 26% in DC from last year. So, why is the New York Times doing this?
Laundering the real reasons people in power do things by adopting their lies as assumed truth is among the most interesting and dangerous contemporary copaganda techniques. I devote almost entire chapter in the Copaganda book to it.