gnews | “The Kraken” is the Military’s nickname for the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion in Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
We have all been wondering what was the meaning of this term, what
was the meaning of the rumor that a server was seized in a CIA facility
in Frankfurt, was the rumor that people were killed or hurt in the raid
true, why is it important that Sidney Powell is trained in procedures of
Military Tribunals?
What we are finding out is that we are facing treason in the homeland
and clear interference by foreign actors – aka by the CCP, and others.
The dam of closely-held secrets is breaking. The conspiring actors have
been trying to hold the dam but the cracks are appearing.
The Constitution did not contemplate cyber-warfare by the CIA on
America, a collaboration by media and social media in treason, treason
by a major party, and unlimited cyber warfare by foreign actors, all at
the same time! We are facing a Constitutional “safe harbor” deadline of
December 14th, but for treason, the President and the
Military will not, cannot, stand by and watch this election be stolen.
The President swore an oath to protect the American people and the
Constitution from all enemies Foreign and Domestic, not to give up
because of an artificial deadline. Treason is a matter for a military
tribunal. Sidney Powell is trained in the procedures of military
tribunals. These charges will be brought to the Supreme Court of the
United States, but beyond that, it can be a matter for a military
tribunal.
General McInerney also disclosed that his phone has been hacked by
the treasonous forces trying to subvert the democratic process in
America. His warning to Joe Biden and all the forces arrayed with him
was to surrender, the American people will not rest until they are
brought to justice for treason.
American Thinker also published an important article (“The smartest
man in the room has joined Sidney Powell’s team, Andrea Widburg) on
November 28th. Widburg states that Sidney Powell in her Georgia lawsuit
included the declaration of Dr Navid Keshawarz-Nia. He is a witness
stating that the election was turned in favor of Joe Biden through
computer fraud.
greenwald |A report declassified last Wednesday by the
Department of Homeland Security is raising serious concerns about the
possibly illegal involvement by the intelligence community in U.S.
domestic political affairs.
Entitled “Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021,” the March 1 Report
from the Director of National Intelligence states that it was prepared
“in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland
Security—and was drafted by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).”
Its primary point is this: “The IC [intelligence community] assesses
that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) who are motivated by a range of
ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal events in the
United States pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021.” While
asserting that “the most lethal” of these threats is posed by “racially
or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent
extremists (MVEs),” it makes clear that its target encompasses a wide
range of groups from the left (Antifa, animal rights and environmental
activists, pro-choice extremists and anarchists: “those who oppose
capitalism and all forms of globalization”) to the right (sovereign
citizen movements, anti-abortion activists and those deemed motivated by
racial or ethnic hatreds).
The U.S. security state apparatus
regards the agenda of “domestic violent extremists” as “derived from
anti-government or anti-authority sentiment,” which includes “opposition
to perceived economic, racial or social hierarchies.” In sum, to the
Department of Homeland Security, an “extremist” is anyone who opposes
the current prevailing ruling class and system for distributing power.
Anyone they believe is prepared to use violence, intimidation or
coercion in pursuit of these causes then becomes a “domestic violent
extremist,” subject to a vast array of surveillance, monitoring and
other forms of legal restrictions:
It
goes without saying that violence of any kind — including that which is
politically motivated — is a serious crime under U.S. law, and it is
the proper role of the U.S. Government to investigate and prevent it.
But there are real and important legal and institutional limits on the
authority of the intelligence community to involve itself in domestic
law enforcement, or other forms of domestic political activity, that
seem threatened here, if not outright violated.
What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO
nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains
that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there
is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them, what is the need
for NATO? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do
foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial
interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?
These are the concerns that have prompted French President Macron to
call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to turn away
from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and beak with the
pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe
while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany
is balking at demands that it freeze by this coming March by going
without Russian gas.
Instead of a real military threat from Russia and China, the problem for American strategists is the absence of such a threat.
What the U.S. needed was to provoke Russia, and later China, into
reacting to U.S. arranged threats in a way that would oblige its
'allies' to follow its sanction policies.
The rather dimwitted European leadership fell for the trick.
Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"
The U.S. arranged for a Ukrainian attack on the rebel held Donbas
region. This started on February 17 with intense artillery preparations
against Donbas positions as recorded by the OSCE observers
at that border. Russia had to react or see the ethnic Russians in those
areas getting maimed and killed by Nazi devoting Ukrainians.
There was no way to prevent that but by other than military means. On
February 22 Russia recognized the Donbas republics as independent
states and signed defense agreements with them.
The same day the German chancellor Olaf Scholz canceled the launch of
the undersea Nord Stream II pipeline which was to transport Russian gas
to Germany's industries and consumers.
The Europeans launched a sequence of extremely harsh economic
sanctions against Russia which, prodded by the U.S., had been prepared
months in advance.
Russia's Special Military Operation, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, commenced on February 24.
A follow-up piece by Michael Hudson on February 28 stated that Germany had been defeated for a third time in a century:
The active military force since 1991 has been the United
States. Rejecting mutual disarmament of the Warsaw Pact countries and
NATO, there was no “peace dividend.” Instead, the U.S. policy by the
Clinton administration to wage a new military expansion via NATO has
paid a 30-year dividend in the form of shifting the foreign policy of
Western Europe and other American allies out of their domestic political
sphere into their own “national security” blob (the word for special
rentier interests that must not be named). NATO has become Europe’s
foreign-policy-making body, even to the point of dominating domestic
economic interests.
The recent prodding of Russia by expanding Ukrainian anti-Russian
ethnic violence by Ukraine’s neo-Nazi post-2014 Maiden regime aims at
forcing a showdown. It comes in response to the fear by U.S.
interests that they are losing their economic and political hold on
their NATO allies and other Dollar Area satellites as these countries
have seen their major opportunities for gain to lie in increasing trade
and investment with China and Russia. ... As President
Biden explained, the current military escalation (“Prodding the Bear”)
is not really about Ukraine. Biden promised at the outset that no U.S.
troops would be involved. But he has been demanding for over a year that
Germany prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from supplying its industry
and housing with low-priced gas and turn to the much higher-priced U.S.
suppliers. ... So the most pressing U.S. strategic aim of
NATO confrontation with Russia is soaring oil and gas prices. In
addition to creating profits and stock-market gains for U.S. companies,
higher energy prices will take much of the steam out of the German
economy.
(Some people currently peddle a 'Secret RAND study from January
2022'. It is obviously faked. It is simply a write up of Hudson's
analysis.)
Nord Stream II was created to make Germany independent from pipelines
running through Poland and the Ukraine. Blocking it was the most stupid
thing for Germany to do and thus chancellor Scholz did it.
In the following months Poland blocked the Yamal pipeline which also
brought Russian gas to Germany. Ukraine followed up with cutting off two
Russian pipelines. The main compressor stations of the Nord Stream I
pipeline, which the German company Siemens had build and has the
maintenance contract, failed one after the other. Sanction are
prohibiting Siemens from repairing them.
It is not Russia that has blocked its gas and oil from European
markets. It were the German, Polish and Ukrainian governments that did
it.
Russia would in fact be happy to sell more. Putin has recently again offered to push as much Russian gas as possible through Nord Stream II to Germany:
After all, if they need it urgently, if things are so bad,
just go ahead and lift sanctions against Nord Stream 2, with its 55
billion cubic metres per year – all they have to do is press the button
and they will get it going. But they chose to shut it off themselves;
they cannot repair one pipeline and imposed sanctions against the new
Nord Stream 2 and will not open it. Are we to blame for this?
It is the German government that is to blame for rejecting that offer.
The economic war against Russia that the sanctions against were meant
to win has failed to move Russia. The Rubel is stronger than ever.
Russia is making record profits even while selling fewer gas and oil
than before the war. Russia may have a small recession this year but its
standard of living is not in decline.
As was easy predictable and, as Michael Hudson explained, the
economic consequences of the anti-Russian sanctions within Europe have
in contrast huge catastrophic consequences for the Europe's industries,
its societies and its political standing in the world.
Governments and the media had so far refrained from noting the
gigantic problems that are coming up and which industry leaders had
pointed out early on. Only over the last two weeks or so have they
picked up the urgent warnings.
The first German companies have begun throwing in the towel
and consumption is collapsing in response to the fallout from exploding
energy prices. The economy is sliding almost uncontrolled into a crisis that could permanently weaken the country.
The piece discusses the five stages along which the catastrophe will happen.
Act One: Freezing Production - It is becoming prohibitively expensive to produce in Germany. Act Two: The Price Trap - No one buys at the high prices German products now cost. Act Three: The Consumer Crisis - Needing to pay high energy prices German consumers buy less of everything else. Act Four: The Wave of Bankruptcies. Act Five: The Final Act on the Labor Market.
When Germany will have some 6 to 10 million unemployed people, and
the government less tax income as only a few companies will be
profitable, the social system will break down.
Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker, warned last week
that it could reallocate production out of Germany and eastern Europe if
energy prices don’t come down.
Europe is paying seven times as much for gas as the US, underscoring a
dramatic erosion of the continent’s industrial competitiveness that
threatens to cause lasting damage to its economy. With Russian President
Vladimir Putin redoubling his war efforts in Ukraine, there’s little
sign that gas flows - and substantially lower prices - would be restored
to Europe in the near term.
All eyes may be on the Italian election results this
morning, but Europe’s got much bigger problems on its hands than the
prospect of a Right-wing government. Winter is coming, and the
catastrophic consequences of Europe’s self-imposed energy crisis are already being felt across the continent.
As politicians continue to devise unrealistic plans for
energy rationing, the reality is that soaring energy prices and falling
demand have already caused dozens of plants across a diverse range of
energy-intensive industries — glass, steel, aluminium, zinc,
fertilisers, chemicals — to cut back production or shut down, causing thousands of workers to be laid off. Even the pro-war New York Times was recently forced to acknowledge
the “crippling” impact that Brussels’s sanctions are having on industry
and the working class in Europe. “High energy prices are lashing
European industry, forcing factories to cut production quickly and put
tens of thousands of employees on furlough,” it reported. ... It’s
truly a sign of the feebleness of Europe’s politicians that despite the
fast-approaching cliff, no one can bring themselves to state the
obvious: that the sanctions need to end. There’s simply no
moral justification for destroying the livelihoods of millions of
Europeans simply to school Putin, even if the sanctions were helping to
achieve that aim, which they clearly aren’t.
The U.S., while also going into a recession, will profit, as it had planned, from the European catastrophe.
The Handelsblatt, a business daily, reports that Germany companies are moving production to North America.
Washington is attracting German companies with cheap energy and low taxes.
herson.tsargrad |Question: Do you concede that not only in the territory of the
border regions of Russia – that’s to say, the Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh,
Rostov regions, and Crimea — but martial law may be declared
throughout the country?
YP: Very had to believe, but I cannot rule out this
possibility. This is because, in my opinion, the question of creating
the State Defense Committee is already overdue and even overready. We
now live under the laws of peacetime. Accordingly, we can influence
certain structures, including state power and elected power, only
through the laws of peacetime. Holding referendums raises the stakes and
already implies a war to the bitter end, because neither Kiev nor the
West will agree to the outcomes of the referendums. Therefore,
everything will depend on the military, there will be no negotiations.
The essence of the special operation must change – this is inevitable.
Question: Does this mean that the Special Military Operation itself will change in its essence?
YP: I really hope for it. I think it’s inevitable.
Because it makes no sense to announce even partial mobilization within
the framework of the Special Military Operation [SMO] – and this cannot
solve the problem of a referendum. It is clear that the status of the
SMO should be changed; this has been under discussion for a long time.
If, nevertheless, martial law is declared on the territory of Russia,
then we can expect the termination of the transit of natural gas through
the territory of Ukraine and many other negative economic consequences.
Right now I believe that strikes against the critical infrastructure of
Ukraine should simply be unavoidable. And this will quickly put Kiev in
an uncomfortable position. Military operations must now proceed
differently.
Question: But do I understand correctly that there will be an escalation?
YP: Of course, this is the next stage of escalation,
and at the highest level. The next stage is the direct and open
declaration of war. Although the war has in fact already been under way.
You can call this a special military operation as much as you like, but
the essence of it will now change.
Question: How do you think the situation will develop? You have
already said that this is an escalation, that these are quite tough
measures. I have a certain suspicion that Russian society for the most
part is not ready for such a development of the situation. How to convey
to people that this is important? That this is necessary — partial
mobilization and the introduction of martial law?
YP: We woke up on February 24 in a completely
different country. It’s just that people still try not to notice it. But
this is to be expected, really. After all, both at the beginning of the
First World War and at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, people
also did not fully understand the essence of the events that took place
at the beginning. And even the leadership of the Soviet Union finally
designated the Great Patriotic War as the Great Patriotic War only on
August 10–11, 1941, and not on June 22 at all. It’s the same with us
now. The war is already underway, and we have had another country since
February 24. In gradual steps our society should mature to
understanding. And yet we are not going anywhere else. The country will
be different. The world will be different. And we, accordingly, must
win our place under the sun in the new world for our country. There are
no other options. If we do not do this, then we will be in the dustbin
of history.
Question: What will this mean from the practical point of view of our compatriots, ordinary Russians?
YP: In fact, for the ordinary person, nothing
fundamentally will change, not yet. But the rules of the game in the
country will change. That is, many things that could still be done – to
criticize the special military operation, to criticize the army, to
express, as some say, ‘their personal opinion’ about these events which
harm Russian society — all this will gradually be curtailed. It is clear
that you cannot conduct military operations when a powerful fifth
column is fighting against you in the rear. This, first of all, the
ordinary Russian will have to understand.
There is one more problem. Many officials are waiting for everything
to come back to where it was in the expectation that the Russian army
will lose in Ukraine. I feel and see it when I communicate with people.
And I really hope that after Vladimir Putin’s address, all this will
stay in the past. Each official will be subject to completely different
requirements. They will either have to support what is happening, or
they will be removed from their places.
Question: So you are convinced that the behaviour and thinking of the so-called elite will change?
YP: Not right away. But things will change very
quickly. However, the mobilization will affect a very small number of
people. It will be no more than a few hundred thousand people.
Question: I understand what the transition to the mobilization
model of the economy means. However, I have very significant doubts,
taking into account the structure of the domestic economy, taking into
account those owners who control the assets. I am skeptical that this
entire group will begin to change. What do you think the mobilization
economy means?
YP: The mobilization economy can be different –
full, partial, and so on. I do not think that the same emphasis will
be placed on this now as it was in the Soviet Union in 1941. That is,
everything for victory, and nothing else for anything. However, the
production of weapons will be increased; we will see some changes in
priorities. We urgently need to make ourselves independent now,
including in the information space, in the computer business. And if
earlier we tried persuading the asset owners to do this, now we must
compel them by state order.
Rand | This week marks one year since Russia's full-scale invasion of
Ukraine began, igniting the largest armed conflict in Europe since World
War II.
RAND researchers have been analyzing the war from countless angles, providing insights on Russian and Ukrainian capabilities, the potential for diplomacy, refugee assistance, and much more.
What have we learned? And what might lie ahead?
We asked nearly 30 RAND experts to reflect on this
grim anniversary by highlighting notable takeaways from the first year
of Russia's all-out war—and sharing what they're watching as the
conflict in Ukraine grinds on. Here's what they said.
“Russia seems poised to resume limited offensives. Ukraine also seeks
another successful counteroffensive. Yet both sides' capabilities are
being worn down. Ukraine will need continued and predictable support as
Russia digs deep into its reserves.”
What stood out in Year One
“The trajectory of Russia-Ukraine negotiations seems odd in retrospect. The sides came closest to outlining the contours of a settlement in the first six weeks of the conflict. What was nearly agreed to then would be inconceivable now.”
What to watch in Year Two
“I will be watching closely to see if Russia is learning from its mistakes or just perpetuating them.”
What stood out in Year One
“Of the war's many takeaways, perhaps the most fundamental is that
large, conventional wars are not just confined to history books. It's a
lesson that many only half-believed until February 24, and one that the
world must never forget going forward.”
What to watch in Year Two
“The big strategic question is whether the front lines will stagnate
and eventually turn the war into a frozen conflict. The answer will
ultimately come down to whether Western military aid or the ongoing
Russian mobilization gains the upper hand.”
What stood out in Year One
“The strategic failure of the Russian leadership and the incompetence of the Russian military.”
What to watch in Year Two
“The evolving views of the Russian elite and the Russian populace toward Putin and the war.”
bloomberg |Two months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of
Defense Lloyd Austin convened an extraordinary conclave of allies and
partners at the U.S. military base in Ramstein, Germany. They were there
to establish a wartime coalition whose announced aim, at the time, was
to protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression.
The
participants were mostly members of the NATO alliance. They were joined
by a dozen or so pro-U.S. nations. Among them was Israel, a country
that began the war with the hope of remaining neutral but has been
reluctantly, incrementally and inexorably drawn toward the American
side. Israel’s presence at the conference signaled that it was now all
in.
The question is, all in on what?
Israel accepted the invitation assuming that it would be asked to play a
small part in arming Ukraine with advanced weapons that would enable
Kyiv to hold off and push back the invaders. But after the conference,
Austin told journalists that the goal of the Ramstein alliance would be
to weaken Russia in a way that would prevent it from using military
force against its neighbors. In other words, to reduce Russia from a
superpower to a more minor status. The Ramstein Group would be meeting
once a month, moreover, a sign America is anticipating a long war.
Russia
replied by signaling that it wouldn’t accept the sort of total defeat
that the U.S. and its partners had in mind. Putin made it clear that
Russia would, if necessary, use nuclear weapons to prevent such an
outcome.
The
government of Israel didn’t tell the public in advance that it had
decided to join a wartime alliance that in theory could lead to a
nuclear war. And it has yet to react to the Russian threat. But going to
Ramstein was a defining decision. There is no off-ramp.
Military
alliances are new to Israel. In the 1991 Gulf War its efforts to join
the U.S.-led coalition were rebuffed by Arab members. It isn’t a NATO
nation, which means that it has no mutual security guarantee. It also
has no formal defense treaty with the U.S. Israel is a
country accustomed to fighting neighborhood battles on its own. Signing
up for a prolonged conflict against Russia in Ukraine, perhaps a wider
war in Europe or even Armageddon isn’t something Israel appears to have
thought about deeply.
Most
of the Ramstein countries don’t have Russian troops on their borders.
Israel does, in Syria. In recent years, Israel and Russia have
coordinated military efforts that allowed Israel to wage a shadow war
against Iran and its proxies. An antagonized Russia will be much less
likely to prevent Iran from supplying its proxy army in Lebanon or
moving its own Islamic Republic army closer to Israel’s frontier. It’s
clear that ties
between Russia and Israel are already fraying. On Monday, Israel
denounced recent comments by Russia’s foreign minister saying he
believed Hitler had Jewish roots.
As
the war in Ukraine evolves, Jerusalem will do what Washington asks, up
to clear red lines. No presently conceivable Israeli government would
send large combat forces to fight in Ukraine. There is also little
chance Israel will ship heavy military gear there. NATO countries have
more than enough advanced weapons to go around, especially now that the
U.S. is ramping up domestic arms production. Israel also will refrain
from sharing its closely held military secrets with coalition
allies (although there are very few that the U.S. isn’t privy to).
foreignpolicy | For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S.
government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to
American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the
implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an
unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and
TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the
Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could
only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries.
The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast:
It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics
covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet,
human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and
Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a
long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times
over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J.
William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and
Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic
distribution, saying
they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in
the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt
was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued
that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric:
American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American
audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last
defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet,
and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."
"They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters
of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get
locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate."
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda,
but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for
instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling
anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for
news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local
radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora
communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat
community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today,
but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like
VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."
Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now
Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with
their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all
involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic
propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last
year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared
in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in
back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in
Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed
a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting
comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing
al-Shabab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and
commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting
material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported
the Post.
newsweek | The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon
over the past decade. Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret
army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part
of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than
ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA,
carries out domestic and foreign assignments, both in military uniforms
and under civilian cover, in real life and online, sometimes hiding in
private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name
companies.
The unprecedented shift has placed an ever greater
number of soldiers, civilians, and contractors working under false
identities, partly as a natural result in the growth of secret special
forces but also as an intentional response to the challenges of
traveling and operating in an increasingly transparent world. The
explosion of Pentagon cyber warfare, moreover, has led to thousands of
spies who carry out their day-to-day work in various made-up personas,
the very type of nefarious operations the United States decries when
Russian and Chinese spies do the same.
Newsweek's exclusive report on this secret world is the result
of a two-year investigation involving the examination of over 600
resumes and 1,000 job postings, dozens of Freedom of Information Act
requests, and scores of interviews with participants and defense
decision-makers. What emerges is a window into not just a little-known
sector of the American military, but also a completely unregulated
practice. No one knows the program's total size, and the explosion of
signature reduction has never been examined for its impact on military
policies and culture. Congress
has never held a hearing on the subject. And yet the military
developing this gigantic clandestine force challenges U.S. laws, the
Geneva Conventions, the code of military conduct and basic
accountability.
The signature reduction effort engages some 130 private companies to
administer the new clandestine world. Dozens of little known and secret
government organizations support the program, doling out classified
contracts and overseeing publicly unacknowledged operations. Altogether
the companies pull in over $900 million annually to service the
clandestine force—doing everything from creating false documentation and
paying the bills (and taxes) of individuals operating under assumed
names, to manufacturing disguises and other devices to thwart detection
and identification, to building invisible devices to photograph and
listen in on activity in the most remote corners of the Middle East and
Africa.
newyorker | When
we first spoke, in early September, Goemans predicted a protracted
conflict. None of the three main variables of war-termination
theory—information, credible commitment, and domestic politics—had been
resolved. Both sides still believed that they could win, and their
distrust for each other was deepening by the day. As for domestic
politics, Putin was exactly the sort of leader that Goemans had warned
about. Despite his significant repressive apparatus, he did not have
total control of the country. He kept calling the war a “special
military operation” and delaying a mass mobilization, so as not to have
to face domestic unrest. If he started losing, Goemans predicted, he
would simply escalate.
And then, in the weeks
after Goemans and I first spoke, events accelerated rapidly. Ukraine
launched a remarkably successful counter-offensive, retaking large
swaths of territory in the Kharkiv region and threatening to retake the
occupied city of Kherson. Putin, as predicted, struck back, declaring a
“partial mobilization” of troops and staging hasty “referendums” on
joining the Russian Federation in the occupied territories. The partial mobilization
was carried out in a chaotic fashion, and, as at the beginning of the
war, caused tens of thousands of people to flee Russia. There were
sporadic protests across the nation, and these threatened to grow in
size. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces continued to advance in the east of
their country.
In a terrifying blog post,
Goemans’s former student Branislav Slantchev laid out a few potential
scenarios. He believes that the Russian front in the Donbas is still in
danger of imminent collapse. If this were to happen, Putin would need to
escalate even further. This could take the form of more attacks on
Ukrainian infrastructure, but, if the goal is to stop Ukrainian
advances, a likelier option would be a small tactical nuclear strike.
Slantchev suggests that it would be under one kiloton—that is, about
fifteen times smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
It would nonetheless be devastating, and would almost certainly lead to
an intense reaction from the West. Slantchev does not think that NATO
would respond with nuclear strikes of its own, but it could, for
example, destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This could lead to yet
another round of escalation. In such a situation, the West may be
tempted, finally, to retreat. Slantchev urged them not to. “This is it
now,” he wrote. “This is for all the marbles.”
“Branislav
is very worried,” Goemans told me, “and he is not a scaredy-cat.”
Goemans was also worried, though his hypothetical time line was more
extended. He believes that the new Russian reinforcements, however
ill-trained and ill-equipped, and the onset of an early winter will
pause the Ukrainian campaign and save the Russians, for the moment.
“People think it’s going to be over quickly, but, unfortunately, war
doesn’t work like that,” he said. But he also believes that Ukraine will
resume its offensive in the spring, at which point the same dynamic and
the same dangers will be back in play. “For a war to end,” Goemans
said, “the minimum demands of at least one of the sides must change.”
This is the first rule of war termination. And we have not yet reached a
point where war aims have changed enough for a peace deal to be
possible.
The theorists’ predictions for what
would happen next depended, in part, on how they evaluated the
variables. Would the Russian front in the Donbas really collapse, and,
if so, how soon? If it did collapse, how much of the information about
it would the Kremlin be able to control? These things were
unpredictable, but one had to make predictions. Dan Reiter, for example,
was slightly more sanguine than Goemans about Putin’s ability to sell a
partial victory to the Russian people, because of his mastery of the Russian media. To Reiter, Putin was enough of a dictator that he would be able to back off.
Despite
being the preëminent theorist of credible commitment, Reiter believes
that the war could end short of an absolute outcome, such as the
destruction of the Russian Federation. “You really don’t like to leave
in place a country that is going to offer some kind of lingering
threat,” he said. “However, sometimes that’s just the world you have to
live in, because it’s just too costly to actually remove the threat
completely.” He saw a future in which Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire and
then gradually turned itself into a “military hedgehog,” a prickly
country that no one would want to invade. “Medium-sized states can
protect themselves even from very dangerous adversaries,” Reiter said.
“Ukraine can make itself more defensible into the future, but it will
look a lot different as a country and as a society than it did before
the invasion.” It would look more like Israel, with high taxes, military
spending, and lengthy mandatory military service. “But Ukraine is
defensible,” Reiter said. “They’ve proven that.”
Goemans
was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the
First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory,
decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the
U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of
the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the
hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory.
This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it
could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did
lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the
Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation,
the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk,
again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could
also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If
used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very
excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s,
like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
For
the moment, Goemans still believes that the nuclear option is unlikely.
And he believes that Ukraine will win the war. But that will also take a
long time, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
rutherford | Here’s a truth few Americans want to acknowledge: nothing has changed
(at least, not for the better) since Barack Obama passed the reins of
the police state to Donald Trump.
The police state is still winning. We the people are still losing.
In fact, the American police state has continued to advance at the
same costly, intrusive, privacy-sapping, Constitution-defying,
relentless pace under President Trump as it did under President Obama.
Police haven’t stopped disregarding the rights of citizens.
Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search,
seize, strip, shoot and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in
almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts,
America’s law enforcement officials are no longer mere servants of the
people entrusted with keeping the peace. Indeed, they continue to keep
the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and
enemies rather than citizens.
SWAT teams haven’t stopped crashing through doors and terrorizing families.
Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an
astonishingly trivial array of criminal activities or mere community
nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork
filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. With
more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting
Americans for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies
laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continue to rise.
The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security haven’t stopped militarizing and federalizing local police.Police forces continue to be transformed into heavily armed extensions of the military,
complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun
guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones.
In training police to look and act like the military and use the
weapons and tactics of war against American citizens, the government
continues to turn the United States into a battlefield.
Schools haven’t stopped treating young people like hard-core prisoners. School
districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a
“schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of
punishment for childish infractions: suspension or expulsion from
school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile
court. In this way, the paradigm of abject compliance to the state
continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school
lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior.
For-profit private prisons haven’t stopped locking up Americans and immigrants alike at taxpayer expense.
States continue to outsource prison management to private corporations
out to make a profit at taxpayer expense. And how do you make a profit
in the prison industry? Have the legislatures pass laws that impose
harsh penalties for the slightest noncompliance in order keep the prison
cells full and corporate investors happy.
Censorship hasn’t stopped. First Amendment activities continue to be pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged
all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely
from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national
security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the
complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the
“principal pillar of a free government.”
The courts haven’t stopped marching in lockstep with the police state.
The courts continue to be dominated by technicians and statists who are
deferential to authority, whether government or business. Indeed, the
Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years have most often been
characterized by an abject deference to government authority, military
and corporate interests. They have run the gamut from suppressing free
speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to
warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on
corporations, while denying them to citizens.
Government bureaucrats haven’t stopped turning American citizens into criminals.
The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day,
thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent
activity illegal, while reinforcing the power of the police state and
its corporate allies.
The surveillance state hasn’t stopped spying on Americans’ communications, transactions or movements. On
any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your
car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you
can be sure that some government agency, whether it’s your local police,
a fusion center, the National Security Agency or one of the
government’s many corporate partners, is still monitoring and tracking
you.
The TSA hasn’t stopped groping or ogling travelers. Under
the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass
transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems
and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, TSA task forces
(comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security
inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection
officers and explosive detection canine teams) continue to do random
security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway
and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways, as well as political
conventions, baseball games and music concerts. Sweep tactics include
the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among
other things.
Congress hasn’t stopped enacting draconian laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. These
laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional
rights of American citizens, continue to re-orient our legal landscape
in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of
law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in
the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t stopped being a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast.” Is the DHS capable of plotting and planning to turn the national guard into a federalized, immigration police force?
No doubt about it. Remember, this is the agency that is notorious for
militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents
and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate
readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with
Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in
American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual
strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target
checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans;
conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out
Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide
surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.
The military industrial complex hasn’t stopped profiting from endless wars abroad. America’s
expanding military empire continues to bleed the country dry at a rate
of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon
spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health,
education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to
recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the
country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial
complex at taxpayer expense.
The Deep State’s shadow government hasn’t stopped calling the shots behind the scenes.
Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations,
contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling
the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government continues
to be the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our
so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no
longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the
Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of
the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.
And the American people haven’t stopped acting like gullible sheep. In fact, many Americans have been so carried away by their blind rank-and-file partisan devotion to their respective political gods that they have lost sight of the one thing that has remained constant in recent years: our freedoms are steadily declining.
aljazeera | It was the height of the dot-com boom in the United States, but the bubble that fuelled the Clinton years wasn't fooling the American military. The top strategic planners of the day were still worried about potential threats to the US in the still young post-Cold War era - not despite, but because of the rapid spread of a still poorly understood globalisation.
Projecting ahead to the year 2020, the military planners and dozens of major corporations who were involved in the research argued that globalisation was making the world a more dangerous place precisely because it would widen the gap "between 'haves' and 'have-nots'" . This situation demanded that the US establish a "full spectrum dominance" over literally every plane of human existence - under and on the sea, on land, in the air and even in space.
Four years later, the September 11 attacks provided the pretext for launching a full spectrum war for global dominance that could not be launched during the "peace dividend" years of the Clinton presidency.
What documents such as the US Space Command's "Vision 2020" did not discuss was that the launching of a new "global war" would ultimately involve turning the American military, judicial and diplomatic machines on American citizens. It happened before: during the Vietnam and civil rights eras with the deployment of military-inspired SWAT units and COINTELPRO monitoring and infiltrations tactics against activist and minority communities.
During the last decade, more than 15 million Americans have entered the ranks of the global "have nots" whom Pentagon planners were, and no doubt remain, so worried about. It's no wonder that the militarisation of law enforcement, coupled with the reduction of constitutional protections for American citizens, have served as natural complements to large-scale incarceration and military recruitment as the best strategies for dealing with the problem of the unassimilable poor.
Yet at some point, gung-ho, ignorance-is-bliss patriotism, large scale imprisonment, foreign wars, even 1,000 TV channels and high speed internet won't keep people off the streets - especially in the wake of the worst recession in 70 years and a decade filled with multiple wars. And thus, the Occupy movement burst to life: inspired by the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt and ultimately sparked by the same underlying global neoliberal system that has concentrated wealth and power and increasingly criminalised dissent everywhere.
Full spectrum propaganda In Tunisia and Egypt, the "secret" or "security" police were infamous for ensuring that regime propaganda was put out as truth, and worse, for spying on citizens and abductions and long-term detention of anyone deemed a threat to the state. And yet now, as these countries struggle to create states that will be less inclined to inflict these practices on their citizens, the United States is moving in the direction they are trying to leave behind.
There are three new and interrelated threats to fundamental freedoms that are directly related to the ongoing war on terror; they involve attempts to permit the US government to deploy propaganda inside the United States, to increase the ability to spy on American citizens and to detain Americans indefinitely without trial for involvement in what until now have been constitutionally protected activities.
All three are direct results of a war on terror abroad that has morphed into a war on the have-nots and the want-nots - those who no longer want to be part of the existing system - at home. While the Obama Administration has not wholly embraced all three tactics, the groundwork is being laid for a full scale assault on the American people should the Republicans strengthen their control of the Congress and even win back the presidency this year.
Beginning with increased propaganda efforts, the most recent National Defense Authorization Act includes an amendment sponsored by Republican Representative Max Thornberry of Texas and Adam Smith, a Democrat from the state of Washington, referred to variously as the "Dissemination of Information Abroad" amendment, and as a separate bill, HR 5736, "The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012." Whatever one calls it, this legislation would overturn a 64-year old prohibition against the US government directly deploying propaganda material towards American citizens inside the United States, thereby "wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences".
Supporters of the change argue that it merely gets rid of an "artificial handicap to US global engagement while creating domestic awareness of international affairs". But in fact it does much more. It expands the authority to develop and disseminate propaganda from the Office of Public Diplomacy to the State Department as a whole and the Broadcasting Board of Governors - a presidentially-appointed body that includes entertainment executives, investment bankers and former White House press secretaries. These are people who have no institutional history of providing truthful or accurate information to the public, in or outside the United States. Fist tap Arnach.
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force".
The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.
They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.
Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.
Check out the right honorable Earl's update note to this blogpost; A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons. UPDATE 8 August 2008 ~ War has broken out between Georgia and South Ossetia. At least 10 Russian troops have been killed and 30 wounded and 2 Russian fighter jets downed. American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces. Several European nations stopped Bush and others from allowing Georgia into NATO. Russia is moving a large military force with armor towards the area. This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion....but one that could have horrific effects. Link to story "Russia sends forces into Georgia rebel conflict". FURTHER UPDATE ~ Russian military forces in active combat; now total of four Russian fighter jets reported downed. ADDITIONAL UPDATE ~ Georgia calls for US help; Russian Air Force bombs Georgian air bases. DEBKA, the Israeli strategy and military site, states that Israeli military officers are advising the Georgian armed forces in combat operations and that 1,000 Israelis are in-combat on the side of Georgia at this time.
Georgian tanks and infantry, aided by Israeli military advisers, captured the capital of breakaway South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, early Friday, Aug. 8, bringing the Georgian-Russian conflict over the province to a military climax.
Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin threatened a “military response.”
Former Soviet Georgia called up its military reserves after Russian warplanes bombed its new positions in the renegade province.
In Moscow’s first response to the fall of Tskhinvali, president Dimitry Medvedev ordered the Russian army to prepare for a national emergency after calling the UN Security Council into emergency session early Friday.
Reinforcements were rushed to the Russian “peacekeeping force” present in the region to support the separatists.
Georgian tanks entered the capital after heavy overnight heavy aerial strikes, in which dozens of people were killed.
Lado Gurgenidze, Georgia's prime minister, said on Friday that Georgia will continue its military operation in South Ossetia until a "durable peace" is reached. "As soon as a durable peace takes hold we need to move forward with dialogue and peaceful negotiations."
"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35) Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Grand Chessboard
thelastamericanvagabond |Americans appear too divided and distracted to recognize
that the architects of the Patriot Act and the failed War on Terror now
have their sights set on the American homeland.
The first week of 2021 kicked off with chaos at the Capitol in Washington D.C. Was it a protest, a riot or an insurrection? Were there provocateurs, and if so, were they Antifa, the cops, and/or the Feds? As
usual, everyone on the internet thinks they know the answer within ten
minutes. Unfortunately, this genuinely leads to the spreading of
unfounded theories – many based on nothing but speculation and emotion.
But while the public is debating over theories and arguing amongst
themselves, the newly emboldened Military Industrial Complex is eagerly
anticipating the incoming Biden Administration as an opportunity to
expand the War on Domestic Terror.
In the immediate aftermath of the “storming of the Capitol”, the
media pundits, intelligence community, and politicians began foaming at
the mouth in excitement over the chance to push through Domestic Terror
legislation. Michigan representative Elissa Slotkin, also former Acting
Assistant Secretary of Defense and CIA analyst, said, “the post 9/11
era is over. The single greatest national security threat right now is
our internal division. The threat of domestic terrorism.” Slotkin went on to say that she urges the Biden administration to “understand that the greatest threat now is internal.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) also reportedly released a
bulletin warning that “domestic extremists” are planning a nationwide
protest to stop Joe Biden from being sworn in as President. According to
ABC News, “The
FBI has also received information in recent days on a group calling for
“storming” state, local and federal government courthouses and
administrative buildings in the event President Donald Trump is removed
from office prior to Inauguration Day. The group is also planning to
“storm” government offices in every state the day President-elect Joe
Biden will be inaugurated, regardless of whether the states certified
electoral votes for Biden or Trump.”
Since the bulletin has not been publicly released the report should
be viewed skeptically. However, it’s only one of many emerging reports
and articles stoking the flames of civil war and internal chaos. The
fact of the matter is that this is not a new attempt to demonize the
American people. This current effort is simply a continuation of the
effort to label Americans as terrorists that has been taking place since
at least the mid-1990’s following the Oklahoma City bombing false flag. These efforts were expanded further after the attacks of 9/11.
In fact, as most readers know by now, it was Joe Biden who wrote the
anti-terror legislation in the 90’s which became the basis for the
Patriot ACT after 9/11.
While the “War on Terror” launched by the George W. Bush
administration was focused on imaginary enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, there has also been a steady push to
focus on the American public. In the first years of the Obama
administration we saw the rise of the “Tea Party” movement, the American
Libertarian movement, and Liberal Progressives who opposed the war
machine, the surveillance state, and the militarization of the police.
Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did their best
to label activists “extremists” for constitutionally protected activism
and organizing. In 2010, the SPLC even came up with a “Patriot Hit List” of so-called extremists.
The post-9/11 era saw the creation of Fusion Centers; centralized
systems that pool and analyze intelligence from federal, state, local,
and private sector entities. The National Network of Fusion Centers was
created after the 9/11 attacks to provide for more streamlined
communication between federal and local agencies. The Fusion Centers
have been criticized as violations of civil liberties and a danger to
separation of federal and local governments. They have been exposed for
targeting of protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline and most infamously, in 2009 it was revealed that the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was
targeting supporters of third party candidates, Ron Paul supporters,
anti-abortion activists, and “conspiracy theorists” as potential
domestic extremists.
mtracey | Question:
does anyone with a media job find this situation to be worthy of some
further inquiry? Or in other words, worthy of questioning the premise of
why such an extravagantly intensive military presence is allegedly
necessary? Is it proportionate to the scale of the purported threat? Has
the nature of the threat itself — whatever that might be, exactly —
been adequately probed to determine whether it is grounded in reality?
Already a bunch of purported threats
initially trumpeted across the media with the usual five-alarm-five
hysteria have dissipated in short order, so there is perhaps some reason
for doubt in that regard.
Instead
of applying a modicum of skepticism to this gigantic show of military
force, much of which appears to be “security theater” in its purest
form, our vaunted media is doing little other than cheering it on. And
of course, inflating the threats being cited as justification for it.
They can repeat over and over again that what occurred on January 6 at
the Capitol was an “attempted coup,”
and therefore everything and anything is justified to retaliate, but
everyone with a brain by now should be able to recognize that the
government was never at a greater than 0% risk of being overthrown that
day. Fear-inducing terms like “insurrection,” “domestic terrorism,”
“seditious conspiracy,” “armed rebellion,” and others have been
marshaled intentionally to inure the public to extreme actions such as
the swiftly-executed corporate censorship purge and now, the
transformation of the country’s capital into a military fortress.
It’s
doubly odd because the deployment of military personnel to various
cities last summer, though generally welcomed by locals and intended to
quell what had genuinely been a sudden outburst of destructive chaos, was depicted by media members at the time as the rawest incarnation of violent fascism. The New York Timesnearly imploded
in a spasm of wild outrage. Suddenly though, this unprecedented
militarization of DC is greeted by the same media hive-mind as the
triumph of good over evil, light over darkness. It’s almost like the
ultimate variable is not principled apprehension about the force of the
state, but whose political priorities are being defended by such force —
and who is being punished.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...