The FBI’s Alleged Conspiracy Theorist-Terrorist Connection Is Anti-American
The Mainstream Media reported earlier this month
on an intelligence bulletin released by the FBI’s Phoenix office back
in May alleging that a connection exists between so-called “conspiracy
theories” and domestic terrorism, and while there have veritably been
some people who hold such controversially defined beliefs and then ended
up killing others, it’s anti-American to suspect that
people who don’t
believe the official narrative about various events automatically
qualify as potential terrorists.
***
The de-facto criminalization of free speech is an ongoing trend in American society that’s already pressured a lot of people to self-censor their beliefs in public in order to avoid official scrutiny from the authorities or harassment by their political opponents, but an intelligence bulletin released
by the FBI’s Phoenix office back in May and only reported on by the
Mainstream Media earlier this month might spread the dragnet even
further by de-facto criminalizing the online pursuit of additional
information that contradicts the official narrative about various
events.
The “secret police” (as they’d be described by the
Mainstream Media if any other country’s version of the FBI was being
reported on) believe that a connection exists between so-called
“conspiracy theories” and domestic terrorism, and while there have
veritably been some people who hold such controversially defined beliefs
and ended up killing others, it’s anti-American to suspect that anyone
engaged in seeking out all sides of every story (no matter how possibly
implausible) automatically qualifies as a potential terrorist.
Screenshot of FBI document
Appendix B of the document says that
“the conspiracy theories referenced in this intelligence bulletin have been categorized as anti-government, identity based, or fringe political because they assert selective, malevolent acts either by an allegedly hostile and tyrannical federal government, by racial, religious, or social minority groups, or by political opponents.”
The examples given for each category are “NWO”,
“UN”, and “False Flags”; Zionist Occupied Government” and “Islamberg”;
and “Pizzagate” and “QAnon”, respectively, followed by a very brief
description of each one. What’s so dangerous about these categorizations
is that some of them are broad enough to be applicable to practically
anyone who’s skeptical about recent events, which in turn could put
these individuals on terrorist watch lists and possibly even result in
restrictions on their civil liberties, such as their right to exercise
the Second Amendment if so-called “red flag laws”
are applicable in their state and Big Tech companies inform the
authorities that someone was researching or discussing such unofficial
narratives online.
For instance, the FBI describes the “NWO”
“conspiracy theory” as asserting that “a group of international elites
controls governments, industry, and media organizations, instigates
major wars, carries out secret staged events, and manipulates economies
with the goal of establishing global rule”, which basically summarizes
the modus operandi of the American-led neoliberal system.
By the Bureau’s own definition, anti-war dissidents
who expressed their belief that the US’ 2003 War on Iraq was launched on
the media-driven manufactured pretext of non-existent “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” in order to advance American influence in the
tri-continental geopivotal and energy-rich region of the Mideast would
be classified as “conspiracy theorists” who would then be suspected of
being at risk of committing “domestic terrorism”. That so-called
“conspiracy theory”, however, has since been vindicated as “conspiracy
fact”, though in the contemporary context, those tarred and feathered as
“conspiracy theorists” for believing modern-day analogues such as the
US and its allies manufacturing fake pretexts to “contain” Russia,
China, and Iran might soon be seen as unofficial enemies of the state.
For another perfect example of just how potentially
all-encompassing the FBI’s alleged “conspiracy theorist”-terrorist
connection is, one need look no further than its description of the “UN”
“conspiracy”, which it describes as asserting that “the UN is being
used by an evil global cabal to erode American sovereignty, strip away
individual liberties, and bring foreign troops to American soil in order
to replace democracy with global tyranny.”
None other than the sitting US President himself has publicly questioned the UN’s role in eroding American sovereignty,
as have most of his supporters, yet the FBI’s bulletin classifies that
belief as a “conspiracy theory” that could potentially indicate a
“terrorist” in the making. Many more such examples could be shared about
how the “secret police” could easily use the Phoenix office’s
definition of “conspiracy theories” to “justify” unethical surveillance
of domestic targets for political reasons, which is anti-American to the
core even though it’s taken for granted that this is already going on
to an uncertain extent. If “red flag laws” are expanded nationwide, then
Trump’s own supporters might find themselves forcibly disarmed just for
agreeing with him.
The Democrats should be concerned too because they
might also find themselves on government watch lists as “conspiracy
theorists” just like their rival Republicans if they simply go to the
“wrong” website that questions official narratives. That could
potentially be Russian international media like RT or even independent/
alternative American online outlets, it just depends on how “conspiracy
theories” are defined by internet service providers, which sites they
“flag” as “suspicious”, and whether or not the user is being tracked by
cookies to link them to that page.
Democrats might not worry too much about having
their Second Amendment rights restricted through “red flag laws”, but
they could come under other forms of targeted state harassment as well
on a selective basis dependent on the “secret police’s” subjective
whims. It’s for these reasons that opposition to the FBI’s de-facto
criminalization of online research (which builds upon the already
de-facto criminalized expression of free speech in many instances)
should be a bipartisan issue because it goes against everything that the
US purports to stand for.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an
American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship
between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road
global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a
frequent contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Andrew Korybko, Global Research, 2019
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment