That entire event screams psyop: the agenda, the optics, the complete lack of security, the staged photos. It played like script from start to finish and drew a bit more attention away from the 'Great Reset' while pushing the 'domestic terrorist' narrative that will be used to strip away any remaining rights. The lines of reality are now so blurred by the onslaught of psychological and technological mindfucks that it's unclear if any semblance of 'truth' will see the light of day ever again.
I think it was actually meant to succeed but was foiled by letters from former military leaders published in the Financial Times (of all places) and elsewhere for the "military not to become involved" in an overturn of the election.
I was branded a fascist and a racist when I wrote as a Facebook status: “Nobody will convince me that a few hundred unarmed protesters almost toppled the Empire”
You made a good, obvious point on Facebook. Sadly, the reaction was to be expected at this half-baked stage in the popular discourse, if we can call it that.
I'm about 99% in agreement with what you said. I still hold out just a shred of doubt about 1/06 and what I'd like to hear is a rational discussion based on an unbiased investigation of the event. I'm convinced, however, that both the discussion and the unbiased investigation are utterly impossible in our "polarized" political environment. Or what might be more accurately described as an environment of unceasing infantile hissy fits. Hence the instant charge of "fascist" leveled at a perfectly rational statement like yours.
I personally thought the insurrection was entirely incompetent, but what else would I have expected from the followers of a man I feel is entirely incompetent?
It was incompetent because it was no insurrection. All year long, people have been setting fire to Federal buildings, trashing small businesses and looting food stores. A few hundred people sneaking inside a building to take selfies after the police opened them the gates is not a planned insurrection
Looked like an insurrection to me. So I'm supposed to think BLM was race riots destroying the country, but fascists storming the capital is no big deal? Sorry, your case stinks.
So I'm supposed to think you dished out some sort of argument? If that looked like an insurrection to you, it's because your brain doesn't work properly
"Not an insurrection" "your brain doesn't work properly" you sound like a subsidiary of the FOX News empire. "The liberals are wrong with their rhetoric, therefore the conservatives are right!" More than naive.
I don't car how I sound in your twisted brain. Branding the demonstrators fascists from the beginning is not a sign that you're going for a fair discussion. People rushing in the Capitol when the police opened them the gates is not much of a storming in.
I'm fairly certain that the people who want to understand something have by now. As for people like you, well, you'll regurgitate the propaganda of the Empire in any case. And since the idea is to have a pretext to curb the right to express dissent, I know where the real fascists are
What, you can't take disagreement? I said, I am supposed to see Black Lives Matter as destroying the nation, isn't that what you are saying? And aren't you also saying the fascists who stormed the capital is no big deal (maybe it was even "the FBI", since pinning it on "Antifa" didn't work out)? Because that is what I hear you saying. And my opinion is that that is nonsense.
Can't take somebody who disagrees, eh? Can only return insults when somebody challenges you?
LOL so funny to hear you describe what they did as sneaking. About as obvious as the nose on your face, of course. But then maybe theyre as incompetent at sneaking as they are at successfully staging insurrections.
The current “war against right-wing extremists" is in fact—and always has been—a war against the Left, waged by right-wing extremist J. Edgar Hoover and his successors in the F.B.I. and the “national security state” against civil rights activists, anti-war Vietnam protesters, unions, Occupy Wall Street, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, et al, characterizing them as a national security threat to the "law-abiding silent majority". This is why Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, are banned from the New York Times, Washington Post, and broadcast news media. The second most dangerous thing on earth to US “foreign policy” is "US domestic policy".
Here are more of my insights: 1. Never run for a bus. 2. Never marry a pretty woman. 3. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls. 4. Subscribe to my Substack.
Never marry a pretty woman, unless she's smarter than you. When you're late the bus will be on time, when you're on time, it will be late. Tin foil helmets insulate from 5G.
I said something on the Thom Hartman FB page yesterday about feeling that the two party system wont give us change, and its a shame cuz nobody is willing to die for a revolution these days, but that's likely what it's gonna take to get real change.
A lady there FREAKED out - I got replies within one minute of posting my comment, filled with screaming all caps and angry emoticons and threatening to turn me in for 'sedition and treason' and I dont think she was talking about the FB police either.
I immediately deleted my comments and unfollowed the page and then shut my own page to anyone that isn't a friend.
Yes, it is about time. These weren't the right people, but they could be a component of a much larger group of the right people ranging fully across the political spectrum. The ruling elites have betrayed this country in profound and devastating ways over the past 40 years with policies like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China. The latter policy is truly amazing. It's as if corporate America had decided to entrust the Soviet Union with manufacturing most of our goods when the USSR was still around. Or as if the US auto companies helped build up the industrial engine of Nazi regime in Germany. Oh wait. They did.
When thinking why people would storm the capital, the issue which makes it "right about time." Does this not matter, or is it just about storming the? Personally I think the question of "why" is important, and you seem to be entirely missing that.
You know, the "why." The ends you are seeking by storming the capital. If it is simply the means you think are most important, over whatever end, then no. I think that is worse than foolish.
I can understand that leftists might be worried that they will be targeted along with conservatives. That's the bed they made for themselves when they allied with and allowed themselves to be used by center-fascist Democrats. I certainly agree that truly violent racists who drag someone to death behind a pickup or otherwise turn people of another race into "strange fruit" must be decisively shut down. So should people who violently beat people, including journalists, with bicycle locks and baseball bats and even stalk and summarily execute people with whom they disagree politically. Clearly, government doesn't need additional laws to do that. We even have laws against terroristic threats such as those that forced Andy Ngo to flee his home in Portland. Existing laws need to be enforced in Democrat-run cities like Portland, Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta.
At the same time, the right to non-violent dissent must be protected on both left and right, and that includes people who non-violently express ideas about race we don't agree with, or who have said nothing at all about race but simply believe the 2020 election was stolen. Misdemeanors like trespass must not be exaggerated to felony charges because of politics, nor should such offenders be jailed without "cash bail" while violent repeat offenders are released because they are thought to be apolitical, poor or "oppressed." Entrapment of conservatives is just as wrong as entrapment of Muslims. So far, I have heard of no entrapment of people who support BLM or Antifa, but truly non-violent anti-corpos of the left are correct to fear it. It will come.
So far, the fascist center is holding, with the acquiescence of "extremists" of the anti-capitalist persuasion. Thus, Capitol Hill police are given a pass for the execution of unarmed Ashli Babbitt, who non-violently attempted to climb through a window. Her death was every bit as agregious as any of the BLM martyrs. "Leftists" need to be building bridges of unity with peaceful anti-authoritarian voices on the right like Glenn Greenwald. Perhaps that's what Caitlin is trying to say at the end of the article. While her claim that "the Capitol riot was immediately used as an excuse to target the left" is a bit exaggerated, her warning is spot on. While a smattering of state laws criminalizing peaceful protest and the isolated arrests of people who used frankly violent language but no overt acts of violence are not a coordinated attack by federal authorities, they are a warning not to be taken lightly. Leftists need to protest the treatment of the Capitol rioters, none of whom caused serious injuries to police. If they don't, they will be next.
With the exception of a few KKK types responsible for a few outright murders during the days of the Civil Rights Struggle I am unaware of any from the Right who have suffered serious persecution from the regime in my lifetime. Until now with those who assaulted the Capitol. Even people like Amonn Bundy have been left more or less alone.
On the other hand, you are quite right about "center Fascists". Those ignorant of our real history will be unaware that it was the great Liberal Woodrow Wilson who launched a nation-wide purge, literally, of the old Socialist Party. Even putting its presidential candidate in jail, and exiling or even lynching others of its cadre.
The behavior of the US regime abroad, particularly in Latin America shows its absolute and militant opposition to not only socialism but even to FDR-type liberalism. We may be absolutely sure, push comes to shove, that there will be a bloody purge whenever it looks like socialism is again resurgent. And that soon.
I'd like to say, across the barricades, that at least you guys sense something not right about the corrupt and murderous regime now in charge. Where you go wrong is to believe the problem stems from a few little brown immigrants or black welfare moms. It comes from the very rich white poohbahs who fund your movements.
What on earth leads you to believe I think "the problem stems from a few little brown immigrants or black welfare moms?" Nothing I wrote suggests that. Do you also ass-ume I'm a Republican or voted for Donald Trump?
BTW I disagree that entering the Capital after being told not to by the guards present there is an act of non-violent protest. Breaking and entering is a form of violence to property at the least. However, it did not deserve a death sentence.
You know who else likes to target the left? The right wing. I really hate all this talk about "right/left alliance" as if it is so natural an idea that nobody can question it without being some "Maddow Liberal" or whatever. It actually makes me want to puke. Left/right alliance? Reminds me of the end of the Weimar Republics, No thanks!
What you've said is part of the problem. You categorize and make assumptions. I didn't say to ally with ALL voices on the right, but to listen and find those with whom you have some agreement. Greenwald has consistently favored respect for the Bill of Right, meaning privacy, speech and due process. Those rights protect us all. He's also consistently been anti-war. What's to disagree with?
I followed Greenwald until he starting sprouting such nonsense as, "Bannon is a Socialist" (though seems to decline such a title for Bannon's carbon copy, and topic of Greenwald's latest book, Bolsonaro). I have been completely alienated by him and his rhetoric which has become so one-sided that it seems to me he is just going where the money is.
Do you think he's making more money now than he was at the Intercept? I was disappointed he stayed with the Intercept so long, but he has been consistent in the ways I suggested.
Perhaps, but can you provide a quote where he proposed curtailment of individual rights, or supported war? I was disappointed that he tacitly went along with what the Intercept was doing such as smearing Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think he ever explicitly supported it and he finally did break with it when it was no longer tolerable.
Weimar Republic (singular) I mean. Ribbentrop-Molotov comes to mind too. What an awful idea. What's worse, the case for such an alliance was never even made. Us everyday leftists just supposed to swallow this "accepted wisdom." The answer is no.
It's strange that something as self-evidentially flawless and wonderful as capitalism sees fit to immediately attack, undermine, and sanction any alternative economic system that rears its head, anywhere else in the world. I'm touched that our capitalist really do care that much.
It's great to see Greenwald, Caitlin and several others amplifying the whole FBI debacle story. MANY have known that the FBI has been creating terrorism for decades. This is now coming out, and I think it's great that a bunch of serious and brave journalists are amplifying the story in a coordinated way.
Through a Glass Darkly: The Origins of America’s Secret Police by Cynthia Chung
The Fascist apparatus that has entrenched itself into the US system has to be destroyed. A Church Committee 2.0 must happen, a Pecora Commission like Roosevelt did in order to justify his breaking up of the big banks with Glass-Steagall MUST happen. This can be done again today. While the MSM can try to control the narrative, that doesn't work if most people stop watching and they move to more independent sources.
As these independent sources move increasingly from exposing all this nefarious evil to then actively outlining the solutions on how to replace this kind of imperial evil, then we're really going to see something interesting. MLK said that one of the powerful components of the civil rights effort was the "letter writing." They had targetting letter writing campaigns to individual congressman, representatives etc... We all know many of these folks are crooked and slimy, but they also are generally afraid of an angry constituancy, and they do buckle under pressure. People just have to know where to put the pressure, and on what subjects.
This article also compliments another compelling piece on the whole not-so-secret "secret police" that is emerging:
Thank God for substack. The Gods of Olympus over in Silicon Valley are probably starting to get worried with all these independent substack pages popping up, like Greenwalds, Taibbi's, Johnstones etc... And they probably overplayed their hand by trying to silence Brett Weinstein over at The Dark Horse Podcast...
While I don't doubt that there are white supremacists, I googled a few of the commonly cited groups and found that none of them describe themselves as such. Some actively reject the notion of white supremacy.
Of course, they could be lying, although if they really thought that white supremacy was a good rallying cry, their refusal to proclaim it would seem to be counterproductive. Nonetheless, maybe they believe that they can better achieve their aims of supremacy by hiding their real motivation for the time being.
The point I'm getting at, however, is the curious and univocal insistence on the term "white supremacist" by the government and media. Wouldn't it be more accurate, neutral and alarming to describe them simply as, say, armed alt-right militia groups -- or use some variation thereon? The supremacist terminology unsupported by any open admissions by any (or most) of these groups suggests to me that a script is being used, perhaps as part of a sort of focus-grouped narrative designed to further a media/government agenda.
Gee, now I've been infected by Caitlin's kookiness.
All this energy put into dispelling these phrases. "1/6 wasn't an insurrection." "White supremacy isn't technically correct." Isn't all this word parsing one of the oldest and most despised Liberal practices of "Politically Correct Language Policing?"
I think 1/6 was an insurrection by fascists. I think these right wing militias are white supremacists. I agree with Woody Guthrie, this machine kills fascists. I don't care if it hurts their feelings if I say so.
You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.
Adopting a more critical posture is fundamental. And you don't have a critical posture unless you look closely for evidence, particularly when you decide to listen to Tucker Carlson. Yes, the FBI infiltrates organizations and messes up. That in itself is not evidence they did so in this case.
That entire event screams psyop: the agenda, the optics, the complete lack of security, the staged photos. It played like script from start to finish and drew a bit more attention away from the 'Great Reset' while pushing the 'domestic terrorist' narrative that will be used to strip away any remaining rights. The lines of reality are now so blurred by the onslaught of psychological and technological mindfucks that it's unclear if any semblance of 'truth' will see the light of day ever again.
I think it was actually meant to succeed but was foiled by letters from former military leaders published in the Financial Times (of all places) and elsewhere for the "military not to become involved" in an overturn of the election.
I was branded a fascist and a racist when I wrote as a Facebook status: “Nobody will convince me that a few hundred unarmed protesters almost toppled the Empire”
You made a good, obvious point on Facebook. Sadly, the reaction was to be expected at this half-baked stage in the popular discourse, if we can call it that.
I'm about 99% in agreement with what you said. I still hold out just a shred of doubt about 1/06 and what I'd like to hear is a rational discussion based on an unbiased investigation of the event. I'm convinced, however, that both the discussion and the unbiased investigation are utterly impossible in our "polarized" political environment. Or what might be more accurately described as an environment of unceasing infantile hissy fits. Hence the instant charge of "fascist" leveled at a perfectly rational statement like yours.
I personally thought the insurrection was entirely incompetent, but what else would I have expected from the followers of a man I feel is entirely incompetent?
It was incompetent because it was no insurrection. All year long, people have been setting fire to Federal buildings, trashing small businesses and looting food stores. A few hundred people sneaking inside a building to take selfies after the police opened them the gates is not a planned insurrection
Looked like an insurrection to me. So I'm supposed to think BLM was race riots destroying the country, but fascists storming the capital is no big deal? Sorry, your case stinks.
So I'm supposed to think you dished out some sort of argument? If that looked like an insurrection to you, it's because your brain doesn't work properly
"Not an insurrection" "your brain doesn't work properly" you sound like a subsidiary of the FOX News empire. "The liberals are wrong with their rhetoric, therefore the conservatives are right!" More than naive.
I don't car how I sound in your twisted brain. Branding the demonstrators fascists from the beginning is not a sign that you're going for a fair discussion. People rushing in the Capitol when the police opened them the gates is not much of a storming in.
I'm fairly certain that the people who want to understand something have by now. As for people like you, well, you'll regurgitate the propaganda of the Empire in any case. And since the idea is to have a pretext to curb the right to express dissent, I know where the real fascists are
What, you can't take disagreement? I said, I am supposed to see Black Lives Matter as destroying the nation, isn't that what you are saying? And aren't you also saying the fascists who stormed the capital is no big deal (maybe it was even "the FBI", since pinning it on "Antifa" didn't work out)? Because that is what I hear you saying. And my opinion is that that is nonsense.
Can't take somebody who disagrees, eh? Can only return insults when somebody challenges you?
Huh. I thought only the hated Liberal responded to disagreements of opinion with insults. I guess the true colors are showing here.
LOL so funny to hear you describe what they did as sneaking. About as obvious as the nose on your face, of course. But then maybe theyre as incompetent at sneaking as they are at successfully staging insurrections.
The current “war against right-wing extremists" is in fact—and always has been—a war against the Left, waged by right-wing extremist J. Edgar Hoover and his successors in the F.B.I. and the “national security state” against civil rights activists, anti-war Vietnam protesters, unions, Occupy Wall Street, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, et al, characterizing them as a national security threat to the "law-abiding silent majority". This is why Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, are banned from the New York Times, Washington Post, and broadcast news media. The second most dangerous thing on earth to US “foreign policy” is "US domestic policy".
So well said! Would you permit me to post this on my Facebook page with credit to you?
Thanks, and sure you can post it...as long as you're not from the national security state :)
👍🏼🤣
Here are more of my insights: 1. Never run for a bus. 2. Never marry a pretty woman. 3. Don't ask for whom the bell tolls. 4. Subscribe to my Substack.
Never marry a pretty woman, unless she's smarter than you. When you're late the bus will be on time, when you're on time, it will be late. Tin foil helmets insulate from 5G.
A lot of what you write is right-on.... but playing Devil’s advocate for a moment or two.... isn’t it about time people stormed your Capitol...?
Maybe they weren’t the right ones to do it, but doesn’t it need storming ..? or at the very least shaking up....
As you yourself point out frequently your Government has been on a violently murderous,misguided bender for the past.... how many years ?
Teaching the rest of the world how to ....?what...?
Be demoncratic...?
Inventing a threat, and when the non-ixistent threat reacts...
“ there you are” they say,
“See, we told you they were dangerous “.
Careful! THEY are watching us.
I said something on the Thom Hartman FB page yesterday about feeling that the two party system wont give us change, and its a shame cuz nobody is willing to die for a revolution these days, but that's likely what it's gonna take to get real change.
A lady there FREAKED out - I got replies within one minute of posting my comment, filled with screaming all caps and angry emoticons and threatening to turn me in for 'sedition and treason' and I dont think she was talking about the FB police either.
I immediately deleted my comments and unfollowed the page and then shut my own page to anyone that isn't a friend.
Strange days indeed.
You should have given her your name and phone number and dared her to turn you in. That's what I do when people comment shit like that to me.
Yes, it is about time. These weren't the right people, but they could be a component of a much larger group of the right people ranging fully across the political spectrum. The ruling elites have betrayed this country in profound and devastating ways over the past 40 years with policies like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China. The latter policy is truly amazing. It's as if corporate America had decided to entrust the Soviet Union with manufacturing most of our goods when the USSR was still around. Or as if the US auto companies helped build up the industrial engine of Nazi regime in Germany. Oh wait. They did.
When thinking why people would storm the capital, the issue which makes it "right about time." Does this not matter, or is it just about storming the? Personally I think the question of "why" is important, and you seem to be entirely missing that.
You know, the "why." The ends you are seeking by storming the capital. If it is simply the means you think are most important, over whatever end, then no. I think that is worse than foolish.
But everything we’ve been told about the Pandemic must be true because Science! Certainly no agenda there, and Biden would have won regardless!
I can understand that leftists might be worried that they will be targeted along with conservatives. That's the bed they made for themselves when they allied with and allowed themselves to be used by center-fascist Democrats. I certainly agree that truly violent racists who drag someone to death behind a pickup or otherwise turn people of another race into "strange fruit" must be decisively shut down. So should people who violently beat people, including journalists, with bicycle locks and baseball bats and even stalk and summarily execute people with whom they disagree politically. Clearly, government doesn't need additional laws to do that. We even have laws against terroristic threats such as those that forced Andy Ngo to flee his home in Portland. Existing laws need to be enforced in Democrat-run cities like Portland, Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta.
At the same time, the right to non-violent dissent must be protected on both left and right, and that includes people who non-violently express ideas about race we don't agree with, or who have said nothing at all about race but simply believe the 2020 election was stolen. Misdemeanors like trespass must not be exaggerated to felony charges because of politics, nor should such offenders be jailed without "cash bail" while violent repeat offenders are released because they are thought to be apolitical, poor or "oppressed." Entrapment of conservatives is just as wrong as entrapment of Muslims. So far, I have heard of no entrapment of people who support BLM or Antifa, but truly non-violent anti-corpos of the left are correct to fear it. It will come.
So far, the fascist center is holding, with the acquiescence of "extremists" of the anti-capitalist persuasion. Thus, Capitol Hill police are given a pass for the execution of unarmed Ashli Babbitt, who non-violently attempted to climb through a window. Her death was every bit as agregious as any of the BLM martyrs. "Leftists" need to be building bridges of unity with peaceful anti-authoritarian voices on the right like Glenn Greenwald. Perhaps that's what Caitlin is trying to say at the end of the article. While her claim that "the Capitol riot was immediately used as an excuse to target the left" is a bit exaggerated, her warning is spot on. While a smattering of state laws criminalizing peaceful protest and the isolated arrests of people who used frankly violent language but no overt acts of violence are not a coordinated attack by federal authorities, they are a warning not to be taken lightly. Leftists need to protest the treatment of the Capitol rioters, none of whom caused serious injuries to police. If they don't, they will be next.
With the exception of a few KKK types responsible for a few outright murders during the days of the Civil Rights Struggle I am unaware of any from the Right who have suffered serious persecution from the regime in my lifetime. Until now with those who assaulted the Capitol. Even people like Amonn Bundy have been left more or less alone.
On the other hand, you are quite right about "center Fascists". Those ignorant of our real history will be unaware that it was the great Liberal Woodrow Wilson who launched a nation-wide purge, literally, of the old Socialist Party. Even putting its presidential candidate in jail, and exiling or even lynching others of its cadre.
The behavior of the US regime abroad, particularly in Latin America shows its absolute and militant opposition to not only socialism but even to FDR-type liberalism. We may be absolutely sure, push comes to shove, that there will be a bloody purge whenever it looks like socialism is again resurgent. And that soon.
I'd like to say, across the barricades, that at least you guys sense something not right about the corrupt and murderous regime now in charge. Where you go wrong is to believe the problem stems from a few little brown immigrants or black welfare moms. It comes from the very rich white poohbahs who fund your movements.
What on earth leads you to believe I think "the problem stems from a few little brown immigrants or black welfare moms?" Nothing I wrote suggests that. Do you also ass-ume I'm a Republican or voted for Donald Trump?
Bang!
Yes, we are all on the agenda.
BTW I disagree that entering the Capital after being told not to by the guards present there is an act of non-violent protest. Breaking and entering is a form of violence to property at the least. However, it did not deserve a death sentence.
Peace!
Were all those videos and photos of them beat up up cops all fakes then? The mob was anything but non-violent.
You know who else likes to target the left? The right wing. I really hate all this talk about "right/left alliance" as if it is so natural an idea that nobody can question it without being some "Maddow Liberal" or whatever. It actually makes me want to puke. Left/right alliance? Reminds me of the end of the Weimar Republics, No thanks!
What you've said is part of the problem. You categorize and make assumptions. I didn't say to ally with ALL voices on the right, but to listen and find those with whom you have some agreement. Greenwald has consistently favored respect for the Bill of Right, meaning privacy, speech and due process. Those rights protect us all. He's also consistently been anti-war. What's to disagree with?
I followed Greenwald until he starting sprouting such nonsense as, "Bannon is a Socialist" (though seems to decline such a title for Bannon's carbon copy, and topic of Greenwald's latest book, Bolsonaro). I have been completely alienated by him and his rhetoric which has become so one-sided that it seems to me he is just going where the money is.
Do you think he's making more money now than he was at the Intercept? I was disappointed he stayed with the Intercept so long, but he has been consistent in the ways I suggested.
I think it is entirely possible, even probable at the rate his newsletter costs, that he is making more than the intercept.
Perhaps, but can you provide a quote where he proposed curtailment of individual rights, or supported war? I was disappointed that he tacitly went along with what the Intercept was doing such as smearing Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think he ever explicitly supported it and he finally did break with it when it was no longer tolerable.
Weimar Republic (singular) I mean. Ribbentrop-Molotov comes to mind too. What an awful idea. What's worse, the case for such an alliance was never even made. Us everyday leftists just supposed to swallow this "accepted wisdom." The answer is no.
It's strange that something as self-evidentially flawless and wonderful as capitalism sees fit to immediately attack, undermine, and sanction any alternative economic system that rears its head, anywhere else in the world. I'm touched that our capitalist really do care that much.
It's great to see Greenwald, Caitlin and several others amplifying the whole FBI debacle story. MANY have known that the FBI has been creating terrorism for decades. This is now coming out, and I think it's great that a bunch of serious and brave journalists are amplifying the story in a coordinated way.
Through a Glass Darkly: The Origins of America’s Secret Police by Cynthia Chung
https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-americas-secret-police
The Fascist apparatus that has entrenched itself into the US system has to be destroyed. A Church Committee 2.0 must happen, a Pecora Commission like Roosevelt did in order to justify his breaking up of the big banks with Glass-Steagall MUST happen. This can be done again today. While the MSM can try to control the narrative, that doesn't work if most people stop watching and they move to more independent sources.
As these independent sources move increasingly from exposing all this nefarious evil to then actively outlining the solutions on how to replace this kind of imperial evil, then we're really going to see something interesting. MLK said that one of the powerful components of the civil rights effort was the "letter writing." They had targetting letter writing campaigns to individual congressman, representatives etc... We all know many of these folks are crooked and slimy, but they also are generally afraid of an angry constituancy, and they do buckle under pressure. People just have to know where to put the pressure, and on what subjects.
This article also compliments another compelling piece on the whole not-so-secret "secret police" that is emerging:
Thank God for substack. The Gods of Olympus over in Silicon Valley are probably starting to get worried with all these independent substack pages popping up, like Greenwalds, Taibbi's, Johnstones etc... And they probably overplayed their hand by trying to silence Brett Weinstein over at The Dark Horse Podcast...
BigTech delenda est.
We already lost. Now what?
While I don't doubt that there are white supremacists, I googled a few of the commonly cited groups and found that none of them describe themselves as such. Some actively reject the notion of white supremacy.
Of course, they could be lying, although if they really thought that white supremacy was a good rallying cry, their refusal to proclaim it would seem to be counterproductive. Nonetheless, maybe they believe that they can better achieve their aims of supremacy by hiding their real motivation for the time being.
The point I'm getting at, however, is the curious and univocal insistence on the term "white supremacist" by the government and media. Wouldn't it be more accurate, neutral and alarming to describe them simply as, say, armed alt-right militia groups -- or use some variation thereon? The supremacist terminology unsupported by any open admissions by any (or most) of these groups suggests to me that a script is being used, perhaps as part of a sort of focus-grouped narrative designed to further a media/government agenda.
Gee, now I've been infected by Caitlin's kookiness.
All this energy put into dispelling these phrases. "1/6 wasn't an insurrection." "White supremacy isn't technically correct." Isn't all this word parsing one of the oldest and most despised Liberal practices of "Politically Correct Language Policing?"
I think 1/6 was an insurrection by fascists. I think these right wing militias are white supremacists. I agree with Woody Guthrie, this machine kills fascists. I don't care if it hurts their feelings if I say so.
You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
Finally, you could use a proofreader.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.
Adopting a more critical posture is fundamental. And you don't have a critical posture unless you look closely for evidence, particularly when you decide to listen to Tucker Carlson. Yes, the FBI infiltrates organizations and messes up. That in itself is not evidence they did so in this case.
How do we know when the assorted alphabet agencies are lying?.
Because the lies ever always only go one way, in favor of Empire.