THE REAL DISINFORMATION WAS THE “RUSSIA DISINFORMATION” HOAX

Due To Release Of The “Twitter Files,” We Now Know Without A Doubt That The Entire “Russia Disinformation” Racket Was A Massive Disinformation Campaign To Undermine American Elections.

Perhaps it was even intended to push a “regime change” inside the United States after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Here is some background. In November, 2016, just after the election, the Washington Post published an article titled, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.” The purpose of the article was to delegitimize the Trump presidency as a product of a Russian “disinformation” campaign.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in US democracy and its leaders,” wrote Craig Timberg. The implication was clear: a Russian operation elected Donald Trump, not the American people.

Among the “experts” it cited were an anonymous organization called “Prop Or Not,” which in its own words claimed to identify “more than 200 websites as peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The organization’s report was so preposterous that the Washington Post was later forced to issue a clarification, even though the Post provided a link to the report which falsely accused independent news outlets like Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and even the Ron Paul Institute as “Russian disinformation.”

The 2016 Washington Post article also featured “expert” Clint Watts, a former FBI counterintelligence officer who went on to found another outfit claiming to be hunting “Russian disinformation” in America, the “Hamilton 68” project. That project was launched by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a very well-funded organization containing a who’s who of top neocons like William Kristol, John Podesta, Michael McFaul, and many more.

Thanks to the latest release of the “Twitter Files,” Matt Taibbi reveals that the Hamilton 68 project, which claimed to monitor 600 “Russian disinformation” Twitter accounts, was a total hoax. While they refused to reveal which accounts they monitored and would not reveal their methodology, Twitter was able to use reverse-engineering to determine the 600-odd “Russian-connected” accounts. Twitter found that despite Hamilton’s claims, the vast majority of these “Russian” accounts were English-speaking. Of the Russian registered accounts – numbering just 36 out of 644 – most were employees of the Russian news outlet RT.

It was all a lie and the latest Twitter Files release confirms that even the “woke” pre-Musk Twitter employees could smell a rat. But the hoax served an important purpose. Hiding behind anonymity, this neocon organization was able to generate hundreds of media stories slandering and libeling perfectly legitimate organizations and individuals as “Russian agents.” It provided a very convenient way to demonize anyone who did not go along with the approved neocon narrative.

Twitter’s new owner, who has given us a look behind the curtain, put it best in a Tweet over the weekend: “An American group made false claims about Russian election interference to interfere with American elections.”

The whole “Russia disinformation” hoax was a shocking return to the McCarthyism of the 1950s and in some ways even worse. Making lists of American individuals and non-profits to be targeted and “cancelled” as being in the pay of foreigners is despicable. Such fraudulent actions have caused real-life damages that need to be addressed.

THE REAL DISINFORMATION WAS THE “RUSSIA DISINFORMATION” HOAX

Due To Release Of The “Twitter Files,” We Now Know Without A Doubt That The Entire “Russia Disinformation” Racket Was A Massive Disinformation Campaign To Undermine American Elections.

Perhaps it was even intended to push a “regime change” inside the United States after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Here is some background. In November, 2016, just after the election, the Washington Post published an article titled, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.” The purpose of the article was to delegitimize the Trump presidency as a product of a Russian “disinformation” campaign.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in US democracy and its leaders,” wrote Craig Timberg. The implication was clear: a Russian operation elected Donald Trump, not the American people.

Among the “experts” it cited were an anonymous organization called “Prop Or Not,” which in its own words claimed to identify “more than 200 websites as peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The organization’s report was so preposterous that the Washington Post was later forced to issue a clarification, even though the Post provided a link to the report which falsely accused independent news outlets like Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and even the Ron Paul Institute as “Russian disinformation.”

The 2016 Washington Post article also featured “expert” Clint Watts, a former FBI counterintelligence officer who went on to found another outfit claiming to be hunting “Russian disinformation” in America, the “Hamilton 68” project. That project was launched by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a very well-funded organization containing a who’s who of top neocons like William Kristol, John Podesta, Michael McFaul, and many more.

Thanks to the latest release of the “Twitter Files,” Matt Taibbi reveals that the Hamilton 68 project, which claimed to monitor 600 “Russian disinformation” Twitter accounts, was a total hoax. While they refused to reveal which accounts they monitored and would not reveal their methodology, Twitter was able to use reverse-engineering to determine the 600-odd “Russian-connected” accounts. Twitter found that despite Hamilton’s claims, the vast majority of these “Russian” accounts were English-speaking. Of the Russian registered accounts – numbering just 36 out of 644 – most were employees of the Russian news outlet RT.

It was all a lie and the latest Twitter Files release confirms that even the “woke” pre-Musk Twitter employees could smell a rat. But the hoax served an important purpose. Hiding behind anonymity, this neocon organization was able to generate hundreds of media stories slandering and libeling perfectly legitimate organizations and individuals as “Russian agents.” It provided a very convenient way to demonize anyone who did not go along with the approved neocon narrative.

Twitter’s new owner, who has given us a look behind the curtain, put it best in a Tweet over the weekend: “An American group made false claims about Russian election interference to interfere with American elections.”

The whole “Russia disinformation” hoax was a shocking return to the McCarthyism of the 1950s and in some ways even worse. Making lists of American individuals and non-profits to be targeted and “cancelled” as being in the pay of foreigners is despicable. Such fraudulent actions have caused real-life damages that need to be addressed.

UKRAINE IS NOT A REALLY A DEMOCRACY

Ukraine Is Not The Bastion Of Freedom Described By Most Western Media. It Is An Authoritarian Police State.

Ukraine’s American cheerleaders seem to have no shame. They continue to portray the country as a freedom-loving democracy, even though evidence continues to mount that it is nothing of the sort. The political and media lovefest accompanying President Volodymyr Zelensky’s official visit to Washington and his address to a joint session of Congress in late December was the latest example.

Voice of America published an article comparing Zelensky’s appearance to Winston’s Churchill’s address to Congress in December 1941 in terms of its heroic tone and substantive significance. The New York Times contended that public morale back in Ukraine had been greatly buoyed by Zelensky’s “hero’s welcome” in Washington. 19FortyFive senior editor Matt Suciu chastised Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida for “refusing to clap and join in a standing ovation for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky’s address to the United States Congress last week,” noting that Russian media were highlighting their display of dissent. David Frum, writing in the Atlantic, asserted that Zelensky “recalled us to ourselves” and our democratic values. Fairly gushing with praise, Frum stated that the Ukrainian president “came to the United States to thank us for supporting Ukraine. It is Americans who should thank him.”

Zelensky’s speech perpetuated the myth that Ukraine is a plucky democracy defending the ramparts of freedom from Russia’s assault. President Biden epitomized that attitude during the earliest days of the Russia–Ukraine war, when he charged that the conflict was part of a global struggle between freedom and democracy on the one hand and authoritarianism on the other. New York Times columnist German Lopez contends that “the West’s enduring rally around Ukraine exemplifies an important trend from 2022 that could influence future global events: ‘This was the year liberal democracy fought back,’ as Janan Ganesh wrote in The Financial Times.”

Such painful oversimplifications of a complex world would be bad enough even if Ukraine were a genuine democracy. The country, however, did not deserve that status even before the Russian invasion, and Kiev’s lurch toward systematic repression has grown much worse since the outbreak of that conflict. Today’s Ukraine is a corrupt and increasingly authoritarian state. It is not a democracy even by the most generous definition of that term. Unfortunately, Kiev’s supporters in America continue to ignore, minimize, or even justify the Zelensky regime’s repressive behavior.

Genuine democracies do not ban multiple opposition parties or close opposition media outlets. Nor do they rigorously censor (and put under strict government control) media outlets that they allow to remain open. Genuine democracies do not outlaw churches that advocate policies the government dislikes. They do not imprison regime opponents, let alone without meaningful due process, much less tolerate the torture of political prisoners. Genuine democracies do not publish “blacklists” of domestic and foreign critics, thereby putting a target on their backs. Yet the Ukrainian government has committed not just one or two, but all of those abuses.

Efforts to smother domestic critics became evident just months after the Maidan revolution, and they have dramatically accelerated in the past year or so. Even early on, Ukrainian officials harassed political dissidents, adopted censorship measures, and barred foreign journalists they regarded as critics of the government and its policies. Such offensive actions were criticized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other independent observers.

Even before the onset of Russia’s invasion, the level of domestic repression was becoming worse under Zelensky. Kiev’s track record on democracy and civil liberties before the current war was not impressive. In Freedom House’s 2022 report, Ukraine was listed in the “partly free” category, scoring 61 points out of a possible 100. Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report on Ukraine also was far from favorable, citing abuses by government forces, “including arbitrary detentions, torture or ill-treatment.” Journalists and media workers “faced harassment and threats connected to their reporting.” In February 2021, the Ukrainian government closed several opposition media outlets on the basis of allegations that they were Russian propaganda tools.

War has intensified these dynamics. Zelensky promptly used the conflict as a justification for outlawing 11 opposition parties. He also invoked martial law to issue a presidential decree that combined all national television stations into one platform. He contended that such a measure was needed to ensure a “unified message” about the war and prevent so-called disinformation. On December 29th, 2022, Zelensky signed a new law that his party had pushed through parliament, a measure that further curbed an independent press. The latest statute requires publications to obtain licenses to operate, and any media organization without the proper paperwork can be shut down immediately. The administrative body handing out the permits will, not surprisingly, be under Zelensky’s control.

Not even religious institutions are safe from government harassment and repression, as the Moscow-affiliated Orthodox Church discovered in the autumn of 2022. On December 2, Zelensky announced that he would seek to ban all religions with ties to Russia, claiming the move was needed to “guarantee spiritual independence to Ukraine.” The ban would especially impact the millions of Ukrainians who identify as Russian Orthodox. Indeed, Kiev soon imposed sanctions on specific Orthodox religious figures. Typical of the attitude in the West was the reaction of one Zelensky defender that the issue was “massively complicated.” That posture was something less than a vigorous defense of religious freedom.

The overall miasma of political and media repression grows steadily thicker, with mounting reports of arbitrary imprisonment and even extensive torture of regime opponents. Yet some supporters of Ukraine even seem unwilling to condemn the regime’s ongoing flirtation with neo-Nazi elements. An especially egregious performance has occurred with respect to the role of the Azov Battalion (now the Azov Regiment) in Ukraine’s defense effort. The Azov battalion was notorious for years before the Russian invasion as a bastion of extreme nationalists and outright Nazis.

That aspect should have caused a problem for Ukraine’s Western admirers when the unit became a crucial player in the battle for the city of Mariupol. Yet most accounts simply focused on the suffering of Mariupol’s population, claiming the heartless villainy of the Russian aggressors, and the tenacity of the city’s brave defenders. These stories typically ignored the prominence of Azov fighters among those defenders, or failed to disclose their ideological pedigree. Yet colluding with Azov personnel was merely one manifestation of the Ukrainian political elite’s long-standing, overall tolerance of neo-Nazi elements and their activities.

Perhaps most revealing of their contempt for democratic norms, Zelensky and his closest colleagues have no tolerance for even the most peaceful opponents, domestic or foreign. The willingness to target and attempt to intimidate foreign critics became abundantly clear in the summer of 2022 when the Ukrainian government’s Center for Countering Disinformation (partly funded by American taxpayers) published a “blacklist” of such opponents. Numerous prominent Americans were on that list, including University of Chicago’s Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and Doug Bandow, a Cato Institute Senior Fellow and former aide to President Ronald Reagan.

The threatening nature of the blacklist became even clearer in late September, when the CCD issued a revised roster, including addresses, of the top 35 targets. That high-priority list denounced those individuals as “disinformation terrorists” and “war criminals.” Describing critics as terrorists and war criminals encourages fanatics to take direct action to harm them. A blacklist can easily become a hit list, but the Ukrainian government is indifferent at best to the danger it has fomented.

Despite such warning signs, Ukraine’s ardent advocates in the West persist in their propaganda. A typical example was a fawning New York Times column by Bret Stephens that contended that Americans “admire Zelensky because he has restored the idea of the free world to its proper place.” Membership in the free world, Stephens insisted, “belongs to any country that subscribes to the notion that the power of the state exists first and foremost to protect the rights of the individual.” One wonders what country Stephens is talking about; Ukraine does not fit that description.

Ukraine’s Western admirers need to face the unpleasant reality about their cherished foreign client. Ukraine is not a democracy, and Zelensky is not a noble, beleaguered champion of democratic values. The Russia–Ukraine war is not part of an existential struggle between freedom and authoritarianism in the direction the Propaganda Ministry wants you to think.

ISRAEL WILL MOVE TOWARDS IT’S PRECIPICE UNDER IT’S NEW GOVERNMENT

Any Remaining Charade Of Democracy And Legitimacy Will Disappear Under This New Regime.

Was it really a big surprise to wake up on the morning of November 2nd to find out that the Israeli government and Knesset would now be run by a dominant majority of nationalistic religious Jews, Zionists and hardline politicians who have previously advocated official ethnic-cleansing and shoot-to-kill policies against Palestinians?

One of them is likely to become public security minister, and others will hold key positions in government. This should not come as a surprise: Israel has been lurching further rightwards for the past two decades, and this coalition has nearly won previous elections, so it is not that shocking that they are now in power. And yet, one should ask: how different will Israel be after these elections?

With a clear majority in the Knesset and a firm hold on the executive branch, this old-new political elite will continue to do everything that previous governments have done over the past 74 years – but with more zeal, determination and disregard for international condemnation.

It will likely begin by expanding the Judaisation of the occupied West Bank and Greater Jerusalem, and by expanding military activity in what is already on track to be an exceptionally deadly year for Palestinians. Since the start of 2022, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 130 Palestinians, including more than 30 children, across the occupied West Bank.

The new government will surely intensify the provocative visits of Jewish politicians to al-Aqsa Mosque complex. We can also expect an escalation in house demolitions, arrests without trial, and a free hand being given to settler vigilantes to wreak destruction at will.

SUPPRESSING PALESTINIAN IDENTITY

It is less clear how far this new elite will go in its policy towards the Gaza Strip. Since 2008, Israel’s policy in Gaza has been so callous and inhumane that one finds it difficult to imagine what could be worse than a siege, blockade and occasional brutal air bombardments on a civil society.

Similarly, it is difficult to predict the new government’s policies towards Palestinians inside Israel. Under the 2018 nation-state law, Israel formalised its status as an apartheid state. One suspects that, as in the occupied West Bank, much of the same and worse can be expected. We will probably see a continued disregard for the rise of criminal activity, along with stricter policies on house expansions in Palestinian rural areas.

We can also expect a continued suppression of any Palestinian collective attempts to express the minority’s national identity – whether through waving Palestinian flags on campuses, commemorating the Nakba, or in other ways expressing the rich cultural heritage of this community.

In short, any remaining charade of democracy will disappear under this new regime.

Yet, despite the massive shift in global perceptions towards Israel in recent years – manifested in its depiction as an apartheid state by major international human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and the willingness of the International Court of Justice to discuss the decolonisation of the occupied West Bank – there seems to be a general reluctance to acknowledge the possibility that there is Jewish racism, as much as there is Christian, Muslim or Buddhist racism.

DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY

Suddenly, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (passed in 1975 and later revoked), which equates Zionism with racism, no longer seems to be a declaration detached from the realities and complexities in Israel and Palestine. The African and Arab member states that pushed the resolution showed foresight in pinpointing racism as the main danger that Zionism as a state ideology carries with it – not only for Palestinians, but for the region as a whole.

The disappearance in this election of the Zionist left can also be easily understood if one appreciates the depth and breadth of racism within Israeli society, particularly among youth. A son of German Jews who escaped German racism in the early 1930s, and now studying it as an adult, was deeply disturbed at this picture of a society mesmerised by racism and bequeathing it to the next generation.

Will Jewish communities recognise this reality or continue to ignore it? Will governments in the West, and particularly the American administration, acknowledge or disregard this trend? Will the Arab world, which has embarked on a process of normalisation with Israel, treat this as irrelevant, as it does not undermine their regimes’ fundamental interests?

We have no answers to these questions. From an activist point of view, it is actually not necessary to answer these questions, but rather to do everything possible so that one day, they will be answered in a way that saves both Palestinians and Jews from a disastrous fate – and stops Israel from leading us all towards a precipice whose edge is now more visible than ever.

THE REAL WINNER OF THE MIDTERMS IS THE WAR PARTY

Arms Makers Pay Big Money To Make Sure That No Matter What Party Is In Power, Lawmakers Like These Will Be Running The Show.

Despite an underwhelming performance in the midterm elections, Republicans appear poised to take back the House for the first time since 2016. The shift has the potential to impact a wide range of policies and will undoubtedly lead to a series of hearings on everything from the Afghanistan withdrawal to Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

But when it comes to defense spending, there’s little reason to think that GOP leaders will rock the boat.

To understand why, one just has to take a quick look at two of the most influential defense policy roles in the House: the heads of the committees that oversee spending and the armed services. The Republicans who are expected to take on these roles next year both have strong incentives to keep Pentagon spending high.

Take Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who will likely succeed Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) as the chair of the House Armed Services Committee. Rogers has been a leading proponent of a push to increase defense spending purportedly because of historically high inflation rates, despite the Pentagon’s insistence that its own budget request had already taken the economic climate into account.

He’s also received over $400,000 from arms makers this cycle, making him the single largest recipient of defense industry campaign donations in the 2022 cycle, according to Open Secrets. And Rogers’ district contains parts of Calhoun and Talladega counties, which together got over $200 million in defense money last year.

Of course, Rogers is only slightly more hawkish than his Democratic predecessor, who banked more than $300,000 from defense primes this year and happens to hail from a district that got $8.5 billion in defense spending in 2021. But the difference could be a bit bigger when it comes to the Appropriations Committee, which is currently led by self-described progressive Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.).

Despite having relatively little defense money go to her district, DeLauro has long been a champion of keeping military funding high. As her website makes clear, her main foreign policy priority is guaranteeing that defense spending keeps flowing to her home state, even if that means continuing to fund controversial, expensive programs like the F-35.

Rosa has always supported defense programs that maintain jobs in Connecticut, including the Black Hawk, Marine One Presidential, Combat Rescue and CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter programs, as well as the procurement of engines for the C-17, F-22, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and other aircraft,” her site explains. “Rosa [has] been an advocate for the Joint Strike Fighter primary engine, with testing and assembly of that engine taking place in Middletown, and played a lead role in terminating the alternate engine program.”

Her most likely successor is Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas). Granger is a vocal supporter of the F-35 and the notoriously dangerous V-22 Osprey, which she says “are integral to our national security and play a vital role in our military’s offensive and defensive strategies.” Her campaign also raked in over $200,000 from defense companies, and her district contains parts of Tarrant County, which received more than $12 billion in military spending last year.

In total, 15 of the top 16 recipients of defense industry campaign funds in the House are members of one or both of these two committees. The only exception to that rule is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who is the odds-on favorite to take over as majority whip in the new Congress.

And those campaign investments are just the tip of the iceberg. According to Open Secrets, defense contractors have already spent more than $100 million on lobbying efforts in just the first three quarters of 2022, and that number will only continue to rise as arms makers make their final push to increase next year’s defense budget.

Unfortunately for the public, there is a significant risk that it will be locked out of debates over the impacts of those investments. As Bloomberg recently reported, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have begun negotiating behind closed doors on next year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which “could be taken up in the House and Senate without amendments.”

In other words, lawmakers are set to scrap the defense authorization bill that the HASC already debated, amended, and managed to pass through the House in favor of one that has never been subject to public scrutiny — the same thing that happened with last year’s NDAA.

Given the sheer size of defense policy bills, watchdogs will be hard-pressed to sift through the next one for potentially wasteful line items before it becomes law. But maybe that’s the point as usual.

THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The Bipartisan Project Of Dismantling American Democracy, Which Took Place Over The Last Few Decades On Behalf Of Corporations And The Rich, Has Left Only The Outward Shell Of Democracy.

The courts, legislative bodies, the executive branch and the media, including public broadcasting, are captive to corporate power. There is no institution left that can be considered authentically democratic. The corporate coup d’état is over. They won. Americans lost.

The wreckage of this neoliberal project is appalling: endless and futile wars to enrich a military-industrial-complex that bleeds the Treasury of half of all discretionary spending; deindustrialization that has turned American cities into decayed ruins; the slashing and privatization of social programs, including education, utility services and health care — which saw over one million Americans account for one-fifth of global deaths from Covid, although America has 4 percent of the world’s population; draconian forms of social control embodied in militarized police, functioning as lethal armies of occupation in poor urban areas; the largest prison system in the world; a virtual tax boycott by the richest individuals and corporations; money-saturated elections that perpetuate our system of legalized bribery; and the most intrusive state surveillance of the citizenry in American history.

In The United States of Amnesia, to quote Gore Vidal, the corporate press and the ruling class create fictional feel-good personas for candidates, treat all political campaigns as if it is a day at the races and gloss over the fact that on every major issue, from trade deals to war, there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The Democratic Party and Joe Biden are not the lesser evil, but rather, as Glen Ford pointed out, “the more effective evil.”

BIDEN’S RECORD

Biden supported the campaign to discredit and humiliate Anita Hill to appoint Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He was one of the principal architects of the endless wars in the Middle East, calling for “taking Saddam down” five years before the invasion of Iraq.

He rehabilitated the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, after vowing to make the country a pariah because of the assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Biden is a fervent supporter of Israel, calling the apartheid state “the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East” and declaring “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” His campaigns have been lavishly funded by the Israel lobby for at least two decades.

In the 1970s, he fought school busing, arguing that segregation was beneficial for Blacks. He and South Carolina’s racist senator, Strom Thurmond, sponsored the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior.

Biden sponsored and aggressively pushed the 1994 crime bill, which he also helped draft, calling for its passage because “We have predators on our streets that society has in fact, in part because of its neglect, created.” The bill expanded the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes and mandated life imprisonment for a third violent felony, also known as the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, more than doubling the nation’s prison population.

The bill provided funds to add 100,000 new police officers and build new prisons, on the condition that prisoners serve their entire sentences. He pushed through the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which gutted the federal writ of habeas corpus, abolished the rights of death row prisoners and mandated harsh federal sentencing rules.

Biden takes credit for writing the 2001 Patriot Act, which expanded the government’s ability to monitor anyone’s phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records and track activity on the Internet.

He backed austerity programs, including the destruction of welfare and cuts to Social Security. He fought for NAFTA and other “free trade” deals which fueled inequality, deindustrialization, a significant drop in wages and the offshoring of millions of manufacturing jobs to underpaid workers who toil in sweatshops in countries like Mexico, Malaysia, China or Vietnam.

He also backed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that, as Human Rights Watch writes, “eliminated key defenses against deportation and subjected many more immigrants, including legal permanent residents, to detention and deportation.”

Biden long opposed abortion, writing in a letter to a constituent: “Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. As you may know, I have consistently — on no fewer than 50 occasions — voted against federal funding of abortions.”

He was at the forefront of deregulating the banking industry and the abolition of Glass-Steagall, which contributed to the global financial meltdown, including the collapse of nearly 500 banks, in 2007 and 2008. He is a favorite of the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industry, which contributed $6.3 million to his 2020 presidential campaign, almost four times more money than they channeled to Donald Trump’s campaign.

In the Senate, Biden abjectly served the interests of MBNA, the largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also employed Biden’s son Hunter.

STAGGERING HUMAN COST’

Biden and the Democrats annually increase the military budget, approving $813 billion for fiscal year 2023. He and the Democrats have provided over $60 billion in military aid and assistance to the war in Ukraine, with no end in sight.

The decisions of politicians like Biden have a staggering human cost, not only for the poor, workers and the shrinking middle class but for millions of people in the Middle East, millions of families ripped apart by mass incarceration, millions more forced into bankruptcy by our mercenary for-profit medical system where corporations are legally permitted to hold sick children hostage while their frantic parents bankrupt themselves to save them, millions who became addicted to opioids and hundreds of thousands who died from them, millions denied welfare assistance, and all of us barreling toward extinction because of a refusal to curb the greed and destructive power of the fossil fuel industry, which has raked in $2.8 billion a day in profit over the last 50 years.

Biden, morally vacuous and of limited intelligence, is responsible for more suffering and death at home and abroad than Donald Trump. But the victims in America Punch-and-Judy media shows are rendered invisible. And that is why the victims despise the whole superstructure and want to tear it down.

These establishment politicians and their appointed judges promulgated laws that permitted the top 1 percent to loot $54 trillion from the bottom 90 percent, from 1975 to 2022, at a rate of $2.5 trillion a year, according to a study by the RAND corporation.

The fertile ground of our political, economic, cultural and social wreckage spawned an array of neo-fascists, con artists, racists, criminals, charlatans, conspiracy theorists, right-wing militias and demagogues that will soon take power.

Decayed societies, such as Weimar Germany or the former Yugoslavia, always vomit up political deformities who express the hatred a betrayed public feel for a corrupt ruling class and bankrupt liberalism. The twilight of the Greek, Roman, Ottoman, Habsburg and Russian empires were no different.

These political deformities play the role of the Snopes clan in William Faulkner’s trilogy The Hamlet, The Town and The Mansion. The Snopeses wrested control in the South from a degenerate aristocratic elite. Flem Snopes and his extended family — which includes a killer, a pedophile, a bigamist, an arsonist, a mentally disabled man who copulates with a cow, and a relative who sells tickets to witness the bestiality — are fictional representations of the scum that hijacked the Republican Party.

The usual reference to ‘amorality,’ while accurate, is not sufficiently distinctive and by itself does not allow us to place them, as they should be placed, in a historical moment,” the critic Irving Howe wrote of the Snopeses. “Perhaps the most important thing to be said is that they are what comes afterwards: the creatures that emerge from the devastation, with the slime still upon their lips.”

Let a world collapse, in the South or Russia, and there appear figures of coarse ambition driving their way up from beneath the social bottom, men to whom moral claims are not so much absurd as incomprehensible, sons of bushwhackers or muzhiks drifting in from nowhere and taking over through the sheer outrageousness of their monolithic force,” Howe wrote.

They become presidents of local banks and chairmen of party regional committees, and later, a trifle slicked up, they muscle their way into Congress or the Politburo. Scavengers without inhibition, they need not believe in the crumbling official code of their society; they need only learn to mimic its sounds.”

NO CALL FOR DEMOCRACY

Biden and other establishment politicians are not actually calling for democracy. They are calling for civility. They have no intention of extracting the knife thrust into the backs of the people. They hope to paper over the rot and the pain with the decorum of the polite, measured talk they used to sell us the con of neoliberalism.

The political correctness and inclusivity imposed by college-educated elites, unfortunately, has now become associated with the corporate assault, as if a female CEO or a Black police officer is going to mitigate the exploitation and abuse. Minorities are always welcome, as they were in other species of colonialism, if they serve the dictates of the masters. This is how Barack Obama, whom Cornel West called “a Black mascot for Wall Street,” became president.

Freedom for millions of enraged Americans has become the freedom to hate, the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag;” the freedom to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, women, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their Christian fascism; the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy; the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture; the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave; the freedom to revel in hyper-masculinity, racism, sexism, violence and patriarchy.

These crypto-fascists have always been part of the American landscape, but the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans, especially white Americans, has inflamed these hatreds.

Voting for the architects of what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls a system of “inverted totalitarianism” will not make them go away; in fact, it will further discredit liberal ideas and liberal democracy. This puts liberals in a terrible bind.

They have every right to fear the far right. All the dark scenarios are correct. But by backing Biden and the ruling corporate party, they ensure their political irrelevance.

The Democratic Party has spent millions funding far-right “pied piper” candidates assuming they would be easier to defeat, a tactic foolishly copied from the Clinton campaign, which secretly “elevated” Trump in the hopes that he would win the Republican nomination.

The Democrats have worked to censor critics from the left and the right on social media. They claim they are the last bulwark against tyranny. None of these subterfuges will work. America will descend into a Viktor Orbán-type of authoritarianism without profound political, social and economic reform.

Those who ask if we should support the Democrats as a tactic to halt a descent into tyranny are in a dilemma. Everyone should have walked out on the Democratic Party while we still had a chance.

THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX HAS WON AGAIN!

When Both Political Parties Pose As Pro-Military, When Both Are Pro-War, When Both Act As If A New Cold War With China And Russia Is Inevitable, Do Election Results Even Matter?

No matter which party won, the true victor remains the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

To paraphrase Joe Biden, nothing fundamentally changed in the 2022 elections when it comes to colossal military spending, incessant wars and preparations for the same, and non-stop imperialism around the globe. There is no new vision for lower Pentagon spending, for fewer wars and weapons exports, and for a smaller, less domineering, imperial mission.

As General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in 1961, the military-industrial-Congressional complex represents a disastrous rise of misplaced power that is profoundly anti-democratic. Collectively, we’ve failed to heed Ike’s warning. The result has been one unnecessary and disastrous war after another, even as democracy in America withers. The Vietnam War—disaster. The Iraq War—disaster. The Afghan War—disaster. The War on Terror—disaster. Even the war America ostensibly won, the Cold War against the USSR, is now apparently about to be refought.

Do you suppose we need to refight the Cold War we “won” thirty years ago so we can lose that one too?

With the Democrats doing somewhat better than expected at the polls, war business should continue to grow in Washington, D.C. Most political commentators seem to think this is a good thing, when they think about it at all. Few seem to recall Ike’s warning that a military establishment of vast proportions is antithetical to democracy.

In this election cycle, we have heard nothing about peace. We have heard nothing about strengthening and preserving democracy by downsizing our military and imperial presence around the globe. Not from Democrats and Republicans.

So the winner in 2022 is the same winner as always: the military-industrial-Congressional complex. It’s a sad result to contemplate when you actually think about Veterans Day.

THE SPINNING DOOR: FROM AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO LOBBYING FOR DICTATORS

A Senior Congressional Staffer Quits And Goes Directly To Work For An Authoritarian Foreign Government — It’s Legal And Happens All The Time.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million towards the humanitarian relief effort in Yemen,” proclaimed a June 5, 2020 letter sent to staff of the powerful House and Senate Armed Services Committees by Ari Zimmerman, a lobbyist working for Saudi Arabia. This will help “alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people,” according to Zimmerman and adds to the more than $16 billion the Kingdom has given to Yemen, making it “the single-largest donor to the country.”

Unmentioned in the letter is that the $500 million donation was the exact same amount Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman spent on his personal yacht, or any reference to Saudi Arabia’s abhorrent track record in the Yemen war. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres once put it, “this country is giving money to repair what it is destroying.”

Zimmerman also didn’t mention that he knew many of the letter’s recipients personally, as they were his former colleagues. Before becoming a Saudi lobbyist, Zimmerman was a professional staff member for the House Armed Services Committee. In fact, not even three weeks passed between the time Zimmerman left the Hill — where, according to his official profile at the lobbying firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck (Brownstein), he was “part of a small group of senior staff” tasked with carrying out the Committee Chair’s agenda — and when he registered as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia.

While it might be shocking that a congressional staffer who helped shape American national security policy so quickly began working on behalf of an authoritarian regime after leaving Congress, stories like this are not at all uncommon. This so-called revolving door, where former congressional staffers and other government officials transform into lobbyists, is rotating at top speed.

New Quincy Institute research reveals how pervasive this phenomenon is. We analyzed Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings of the three highest-earning lobbying firms from 2021 — Brownstein, Akin Gump, and BGR Group — and found that the vast majority of their current registered foreign agents have experience in the executive branch and Congress or, in some cases, were members of Congress themselves.

These government officials-turned-lobbyists come from a range of executive branch departments and agencies, and have often worked in more than one throughout their careers, including the White House. It puts them in a most auspicious position from which to advocate on behalf of a foreign government. For example, State Department veteran Samantha Carl-Yoder, now at Brownstein, contacted her former employer an astounding 56 times in a six-month period in 2021 as a representative of the government of Egypt, either via emails, phone calls or meetings with senior officials. Carl-Yoder inquired multiple times about the status of an attack helicopter sale to Egypt, and even facilitated an in-person meeting in Cairo between herself, former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska), and embassy staff.

Many of these government officials-turned-lobbyists also served as staffers for high-ranking members of Congress and on key congressional committees. Far from being shunned by their former colleagues, they’re often welcomed back as lobbyists. As Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, told Politico, they’re “hardly social pariahs to their former colleagues when they leave the Hill for lobbying gigs.”

Between them, approximately half of the foreign agents of Brownstein, Akin, and BGR have experience in the legislative branch, including top staffers for Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). Perhaps most notably, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s former chief of staff, Nadeam Elshami, now works at Brownstein where he lobbies the United States on behalf of the government of Egypt, which has arrested tens of thousands of government critics and dissidents, including several American citizens. A former Democratic House aide told the Hill in 2019 that “Pelosi staff who go downtown (to lobby) are hired because they are super smart and know how things work, not because they have special access to her.” Yet, at Brownstein, Nadeam has lobbied Pelosi on numerous occasions, while also making several political contributions to his former boss.

And, it’s not just congressional staff who are churning through the revolving door, members of Congress themselves are cashing in on lucrative work for foreign powers. At least 90 members of Congress have lobbied on behalf of foreign governments between 2000 and today And, all three of the firms analyzed here count former members of Congress among their stable of foreign lobbyists. Brownstein and Akin Gump even boast two former chairs of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Royce and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who went on to represent Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, respectively.

In one FARA filing, Ros-Lehtinen even admitted that when she entered Congress she was an outspoken “skeptic” of the UAE, explaining her about-face by declaring that she eventually “fully appreciated the importance of the UAE to U.S. interests in the region.”

As Royce and Ros-Lehtinen’s work would indicate, many of these government officials-turned- foreign-lobbyists are working for authoritarian regimes, and the firms they work for are being paid handsomely by these autocrats. In fact, according to OpenSecrets, the most lucrative FARA client for each of the three firms in 2021 was a Middle Eastern autocracy. Specifically, BGR earned over $1 million representing Bahrain, Brownstein took in $1.35 million to represent Saudi Arabia, and Akin Gump was paid a whopping $4.5 million to represent the UAE.

The experience, knowledge, and connections that these former government officials amassed were not hidden from their clients — they were the main selling points. These and other lobbying firms are all too eager to boast of their lobbyists’ government connections to attract clients.

For example, when Brownstein hired Timothy Keating in December 2021, they touted his “over three decades of high-level legislative and political experience,” including in Congress, the White House, and as a lobbyist for Honeywell. Three months after joining Brownstein, he was lobbying on behalf of the Pakistan Embassy.

While it is perfectly legal for countries to dish out millions to firms with well-connected former officials to represent them before the American government, it is worth asking if this undermines democratic debate. After all, these former officials are often lobbying their former colleagues, giving them an instant advantage in influencing policy favorable to the country they are representing.

This incentive structure may also work to encourage them to audition for their future foreign clients while serving the American people, as it’s not uncommon for lobbyist recruiters to headhunt current members and staff while they’re still working in Congress.

In addition, there are national security concerns at play, as many of these former government employees-turned-lobbyists previously had access to top secret information.

We are allowing members of our government who are privy to sensitive and classified information with political knowhow on how our government works to then use that as guns-for-hire for foreign governments,” Raed Jarrar, the Advocacy Director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, or DAWN, the think tank co-founded by Jamal Khashoggi, said.

Fortunately, some in Congress are well aware of the dangers posed by the revolving door and have taken measures to stop it. Recent bipartisan legislation introduced by Reps. Golden (D-Maine), Porter (D-Calif), and Gosar (R-Ariz.), for example, aims to barsome former government officials from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. The Fighting Foreign Influence Act would “impose a lifetime ban on former senior U.S. military officers, presidents, vice presidents, other senior executive branch officials, and members of Congress” from lobbying for foreign interests.

While the Fighting Foreign Influence Act is not a broad ban on government officials writ-large — congressional staffers, for instance, are absent from the legislation — it is a vitally important step in the right direction.

Asking government officials to deny themselves the opportunity to earn millions of dollars lobbying for foreign governments is almost like Mission Impossible,” said Jarrar. “But a lifelong ban on at least some of them is extremely important to protect the principle of democratic governance in our country.”

LIZ CHENEY AND TRUMP ARE TWO FACES OF AMERICAN TOTALITARIANISM

Think Of It As A Civil War Between Anti-Democratic Forces, Where Good Deeds May Have Bad Ends.

Liz Cheney’s electoral defeat is not the fall of an American hero. The good she has done on the January 6th Committee is almost certainly being done for less than admirable purposes. To ignore that fact is to overlook another front in the war on democracy.

Cheney is one face of the creeping totalitarianism that has been eroding American democracy for decades (and it wasn’t in great shape to start). Her bitter feud with Donald Trump is best understood as part of an internal battle currently raging within this country’s anti-democratic forces.

Any doubt on that score should be allayed by the television commercial her father made on her behalf, where the draft-dodging elder Cheney called Trump a “coward” and said his daughter was “standing up for the truth.” Being lectured on bravery and truth by Dick Cheney is like getting sailing lessons from the captain of the Exxon Valdez.

Besides, what exactly did Liz Cheney sacrifice with this latest turn? Her congressional career was over the moment Trump turned against her – which was well before the committee’s work began.

THE AUTHORITARIAN

As a senior staffer in the Bush/Cheney administration, Liz Cheney served a president who did what Donald Trump could not: steal an election, albeit using the more genteel technique of judicial corruption. That administration’s body count and list of war crimes far exceeds Trump’s (although that could certainly change should Trump return to power.)

The sins of the father should not be visited upon the daughter. But Cheney the younger actively helped that administration lie its way into war, an act of deception that undermines one of democracy’s most essential building blocks: truth. (She was still pushing lies nine years later.) She was part of a national security team that secretly and illegally spied on millions of American citizens and others around the world. Throughout her career, Liz Cheney has been a tireless advocate for war and has staunchly opposed reductions in military aggression (often at the expense of the truth).

As an added affront to the MSNBC crowd, which seems newly infatuated with the intelligence services, Cheney worked closely with her father as he overruled and intimidated career intelligence analysts. And she attacked the FBI’s agents at a time when entrepreneurs were selling votive candles featuring its former director, Robert Mueller.

Democracy? Until recently, Cheney helped lead a political party that systematically undermined American democracy through voter suppression, gerrymandering, caging, and other illegal schemes. She actively participated in this war on democracy by, for example, opposing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and defending GOP laws that would obstruct poor and minority voting.

Cheney also called upon Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, to have the Justice Department investigate environmental groups like the NRDC, Sea Change, and the Sierra Club for lawful speech, claiming that “their interests align with those of our adversaries” like Russia and China.

THE LIZ NOBODY KNOWS

The media’s memory-holing of the anti-democracy, pro-Trump Liz Cheney is an erasure of Stalin-era efficiency. It wasn’t that long ago that Cheney was one of Trump’s fiercest defenders. She didn’t hesitate to attack one of democracy’s basic principles, equality before the law, on Trump’s behalf, telling ABC News: “We had people that are at the highest levels of our law enforcement … saying that they were going to stop a duly elected president of the United States. That sounds an awful lot like a coup and it could well be treason.”

Coup? Treason? Sounds familiar. When she was on the other side during Trump’s first impeachment, Cheney lashed out at the Democrats in language that has since become familiar:

I think the Democrats have got to understand the danger that they’re creating here and the damage they’re doing to the Constitution and to the republic.”

— Rep. Liz Cheney, Fox News, December 2019

… in the case of both the impeachment and their embrace of socialism, it’s just a complete fraud … they ignore their constitutional duty …”

I think the American people are going to hold the Democrats accountable for what they’ve done over the course of the last several months in terms of the real circus and their failure to uphold their oath to the Constitution.”

— Rep. Liz Cheney, Fox News Radio, February 2020′

Once she turned on Trump, Cheney wrote that Republicans “must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution.”

Liz Cheney’s go-to move has always been to accuse her opponents of undermining the Constitution. The fact that it happens to be true in Trump’s case is probably immaterial to her. Then, as now, it’s a means to an end.

THE CANONIZATION

My dear,” Maya Angelou reportedly once said, “when people show you who they are, why don’t you believe them?” That question should be posed to the liberal commentators who whitewash Cheney’s record. Most of this commentary is witless hagiography. But the more self-aware liberal praise singers, like writer Rebecca Solnit, try to wrestle with the paradoxical nature of their enthusiasm.

Solnit wrote a Facebook post which begins,

Apparently a lot of adults have trouble with the concept–and reality–that just as good people can do bad things, so bad people can do good things, and I give you Liz Cheney, who after what appears to be a lifetime of doing or at least supporting very bad things, including her war-crimes-profiteer father, is doing a good thing and paying for it.”

Solnit, often a fine writer, chooses to adopt the all-too-common Democratic posture of lofty condescension toward those who disagree with her. Failure to share her opinion is presented as a kind of learning disability (without the sympathy and solidarity such a condition should inspire). After offering a list of bad people from history who did good things – we assume most Cheney detractors know such people exist – Solnit concludes that Cheney’s critics lack “the ability to cope with complexity.” That lack, she writes:

helps people become manipulable, become cult followers who having once made the decision that the leader is right keep following into all sorts of dank places, become unable to perceive what’s going on around them ….”

In Solnit’s mind, and presumably those of like-minded Democratic liberals, people who critically analyze Cheney’s behavior are “cult followers,” while those who praise her unquestioningly are able to “cope with complexity.” Such is the intellectual rabbit hole that is modern center-left liberalism.

THE QUESTION

Instead of condescension in return, here’s a question: What is the likeliest explanation for this sudden shift in behavior from a politician who has shown a lifelong antipathy, not only to the public interest, but specifically to democracy and civil liberties? Here are four possibilities:

She suddenly realized the war on democracy that she, her party, and her family had waged for decades was wrong and decided to do the right thing, if only this once.

Cheney is, understandably, very angry that Trump told the January 6 rioters to ‘get Liz Cheney’ and wants to get even. (Trump’s exact words as he urged the crowd on were, “We got to get rid of the weak congress people, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world.”) Hey, I’d be pissed too, but it’s not exactly a high-minded motive.

Once Trump turned on her, she realized she would never win another primary and decided to go out in a blaze of self-serving and vindictive glory.

She, her father, and the many others who have labored behind the scenes to undermine democracy and civil liberties see Trump – both the man, and the cult of personality – as a threat to their own long-term plans.

Many are certain that the explanation for Cheney’s behavior lies in some combination of the second, third, and fourth explanations — and probably involves all of them. Option number 1, which Cheney’s liberal admirers have embraced, seems to be the least plausible of the four – by far. Maybe that’s the product of a cognitive defect or an inclination to cultism, but it seems more like a good application of Occam’s Razor.

THE ENDGAME

The January 6th Committee is doing important work. It has made some critical discoveries, ones that should harden anyone’s conviction that Trump – and an alarmingly large number of other people – are determined to overthrow democracy and replace it with a form of fascism. (It has failed to communicate many of those discoveries as well as it should have, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

Cheney has proven effective in a prosecutorial role. The Josh Hawley clip alone was a well-executed political takedown. It takes nothing from her skill, however, to suggest that she may have goals that stand against everything her new fan base says it believes in.

The problem, from the point of view of Cheney et al., isn’t that the actions of Trump and his followers are unconstitutional. The problem is that they’re conspicuous. The Trump crowd is moving too fast, being too unsubtle. A midnight lock picker doesn’t want another thief showing up with a blowtorch.

Trump’s brand of fascism is hasty, unruly, and impulsive, a cult of personality built around an unstable and unpredictable figure. Cheney represents another branch of American totalitarianism, one built on institutions, elites, and stability. Hers is the slow totalitarianism of internal spying, voter suppression, dark money elections, and dynastic politics.

Cheney’s branch of American totalitarianism helped the military-national security establishment grow in power, forging ever-deepening ties with corporations, educational institutions, religious establishments, and political centers of power at all levels – a hybrid form of government, lest we forget, that political scientists call ‘fascism.’

She and her peers kept this multi-faceted complex humming for many years. Then Trump and his minions triggered the hasty and unruly violence of ‘the wrong people,’ who came in breaking glass and shouting ugly names. This intrusion of the hoi polloi was led by people who don’t care about establishment figures like the Cheneys. Their leader humiliated generals and intelligence officers while acting outside the otherwise-predictable range of bipartisan military behavior in Washington.

But this threat to Cheney and her crowd also offers them an opportunity. As Republicans fall in line behind Trump’s lowbrow totalitarianism, Democrats and liberal voters are increasingly embracing the high-tech, lexically sophisticated authoritarianism of the intelligence and military establishments. They idealize the FBI and CIA, hang onto the televised words of generals, and elevate war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the slightest prompting. (In Bush’s case, apparently all it took was a piece of candy.)

Cheney and her colleagues are smart. If they have an endgame, and they almost certainly do, it is to build on this growing liberal support for elites – the same elites that have been eroding American democracy for decades. Our suspicion is that Cheney’s new organization, “the Great Task,” will raise a great deal of money from Democrats in the name of opposing Trump and will use it to reinforce elite perceptions, institutions, and power.

As is so often the case in history, there are no heroes in the Cheney/Trump conflict. One side has been steadily and successfully eroding freedom at home while pursuing mass death abroad. The other side offers a future of chaos and primal rage, in an atavistic America forged from perpetual war against the strangers in the forest. Both roads would bring suffering, and both could lead to nuclear annihilation.

That’s not to say there isn’t a fight underway to build genuine democracy in the United States. There is, and its outcome will shape the future. But if that’s your fight — and it should be — Liz Cheney is not your ally.

LEARN HOW THE FBI IS IDENTIFYING, TRACKING AND ROUNDING UP DISSIDENTS

Databit By Databit, We Are Building Our Own Electronic Concentration Camps. Forget About Being Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

Americans deserve the freedom to choose a life without surveillance and the government regulation that would make that possible. While we continue to believe the sentiment, we fear it may soon be obsolete or irrelevant. We deserve that freedom, but the window to achieve it narrows a little more each day. If we don’t act now, with great urgency, it may very well close for good.”—Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson, New York Times

Databit by databit, we are building our own electronic concentration camps.

With every new smart piece of smart technology we acquire, every new app we download, every new photo or post we share online, we are making it that much easier for the government and its corporate partners to identify, track and eventually round us up.

Saint or sinner, it doesn’t matter because we’re all being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals.

This is what it means to live in a suspect society.

The government’s efforts to round up those who took part in the Capitol riots shows exactly how vulnerable we all are to the menace of a surveillance state that aspires to a God-like awareness of our lives.

Relying on selfies, social media posts, location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing, government agents are compiling a massive data trove on anyone and everyone who may have been anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The amount of digital information is staggering: 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage; 1,600 electronic devices; 270,000 digital media tips; at least 140,000 photos and videos; and about 100,000 location pings for thousands of smartphones.

And that’s just what we know.

More than 300 individuals from 40 states have already been charged and another 280 arrested in connection with the events of January 6. As many as 500 others are still being hunted by government agents.

Also included in this data roundup are individuals who may have had nothing to do with the riots but whose cell phone location data identified them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Forget about being innocent until proven guilty.

In a suspect society such as ours, the burden of proof has been flipped: now, you start off guilty and have to prove your innocence.

For instance, you didn’t even have to be involved in the Capitol riots to qualify for a visit from the FBI: investigators have reportedly been tracking—and questioning—anyone whose cell phones connected to wi-fi or pinged cell phone towers near the Capitol. One man, who had gone out for a walk with his daughters only to end up stranded near the Capitol crowds, actually had FBI agents show up at his door days later. Using Google Maps, agents were able to pinpoint exactly where they were standing and for how long.

All of the many creepy, calculating, invasive investigative and surveillance tools the government has acquired over the years are on full display right now in the FBI’s ongoing efforts to bring the rioters to “justice.”

FBI agents are matching photos with drivers’ license pictures; tracking movements by way of license plate toll readers; and zooming in on physical identifying marks such as moles, scars and tattoos, as well as brands, logos and symbols on clothing and backpacks. They’re poring over hours of security and body camera footage; scouring social media posts; triangulating data from cellphone towers and WiFi signals; layering facial recognition software on top of that; and then cross-referencing footage with public social media posts.

It’s not just the FBI on the hunt, however.

They’ve enlisted the help of volunteer posses of private citizens, such as Deep State Dogs, to collaborate on the grunt work. As Dinah Voyles Pulver reports, once Deep State Dogs locates a person and confirms their identity, they put a package together with the person’s name, address, phone number and several images and send it to the FBI.

According to USA Today, the FBI is relying on the American public and volunteer cybersleuths to help bolster its cases.

This takes See Something, Say Something snitching programs to a whole new level.

The lesson to be learned: Big Brother, Big Sister and all of their friends are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.

Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

The government has the know-how.

It took days, if not hours or minutes, for the FBI to begin the process of identifying, tracking and rounding up those suspected of being part of the Capitol riots.

Imagine how quickly government agents could target and round up any segment of society they wanted to based on the digital trails and digital footprints we leave behind.

Of course, the government has been hard at work for years acquiring these totalitarian powers.

As Warzel and Thompson warn:

To think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence… This collection will only grow more sophisticated… It gets easier by the day… it does not discriminate. It harvests from the phones of MAGA rioters, police officers, lawmakers and passers-by. There is no evidence, from the past or current day, that the power this data collection offers will be used only to good ends. There is no evidence that if we allow it to continue to happen, the country will be safer or fairer.”

As point out in the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

There is no gray area any longer.