Saturday, June 26, 2021

Going Dark

"Cyber Polygon: Will The Next Globalist War Game Lead To Another Convenient Catastrophe? " by Brandon Smith, June 3, 2021

Back in April I published an article titled ‘Globalists Will Need Another Crisis In America As Their Reset Agenda Fails’. In it I noted an odd trend which many of us in the liberty media have become aware of over the years – Almost every major man-made catastrophe in the US and in many other parts of the world in the past couple decades has been preceded by a government or globalist “exercise”. These exercises and war games tend to mimic the exact disaster that would eventually strike the public only days or weeks later. Sometimes the mock disaster exercises and the real events happen at the same time.

The Covid pandemic was no exception. It’s quite miraculous…

I have specifically outlined the bizarre “coincidence” of the World Economic Forum’s Event 201 exercise, a war game co-funded by Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins and launched in October of 2019. Event 201 simulated a global novel zoonotic coronavirus pandemic (supposedly spread from bats to people) that “required” a global lockdown response. Only two months later the real thing actually happened. Almost every aspect of the Covid event has played out exactly as was practiced during the WEF war game.

One very disturbing element of the Covid response has been the coordinated suppression campaign by Big Tech platforms from YouTube to Facebook and Twitter. This campaign has sought to undermine or destroy any facts, data and opinions which run contrary to the government narrative on Covid, even if the official narrative on Covid ends up being completely wrong. The strategy was described in detail during Event 201 and it was executed with extreme efficiency among supposedly disconnected companies and governments around the world. It’s almost as if they KNEW a coronavirus pandemic was about to happen, and they were already staged to control the public reaction well in advance.

And let’s be clear because I do not want to seem ambiguous; the World Economic Forum and their globalist partners have been the prime beneficiaries during the pandemic. As WEF head Klaus Schwab has excitedly noted over and over again, the pandemic is a perfect “opportunity” for globalists to fast track what they call the “Great Reset” agenda – A plan to completely dismantle the current political and economic framework of the world and rebuild it into a highly centralized socialist civilization in which they are in complete control and personal freedom is a faded memory.

This is why recent revelations of Covid’s probable lab origins are not at all surprising. Just mentioning this idea a year ago in social media was enough to get you banned. And, if you want to know where to find the truth, always look first to the subjects you are not allowed to discuss. As I stated in my article ‘How Viral Pandemic Benefits The Globalist Agenda’, published in January of 2020 at the very beginning of the outbreak:

“I have a hard time ignoring the strange ‘coincidence’ of the high level biohazard labs in Wuhan in favor of the idea that the virus was launched by chance due to the odd diets of central Chinese people. Given the evidence it appears that the coronavirus was gestated in a lab, not in someone’s bat and snake soup.  In 2017, scientists outside of China warned that these labs were not secure and that a virus might escape one of the facilities…..I would use the term ‘escape’ loosely, as there is a possibility that this event was created intentionally…”

Elites like Dr. Anthony Fauci (a close associate of Bill Gates and Bill Gates SR.) directly funded studies at the Wuhan Lab through the NIAID since 2015, and specifically funded the study of the infectious transfer of coronaviruses from bats to other mammals including humans. And yes, the NIAID was in fact involved in “gain-of-function” experiments using SARS and coronavirus variants at this time, despite Anthony Fauci claiming otherwise. The National Institutes Of Health’s own website confirms this.

All of these facts support the argument that Covid is a lab created bioweapon, and in my view according to the evidence so far it was released deliberately in close alliance with the Chinese government. Fauci even somehow “predicted” in 2017 that Donald Trump would face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak” during his presidency, stating that “We will definitely get surprised in the next few years…”

The scheme has certainly worked to an extent. In large portions of Europe, Asia and Australia the WEF is getting what it always wanted.

That said, some things did not go as planned. For example, Event 201 predicted an initial 65 million people dead within the first year of the pandemic; this did not happen, and it was not because governments saved any lives. In fact, government lockdowns and restrictions did nothing to stave off the spread of Covid and independent studies have proven mask mandates to be completely ineffective in stopping the virus. The reason for the comparatively small body count is the fact that Covid’s death rate is only 0.26% among otherwise healthy people. The only place wear Covid is a true threat is in nursing homes among elderly people with preexisting conditions.

Because of the miscalculations of the elites, the reset agenda appears to be failing in some parts of the world. In the US, resistance to the lockdowns as well as the experimental vaccines has grown exponentially to the point that dozens of states are now passing laws which prohibit enforcement of Covid restrictions and “medical passports”.

The alternative media has also proven resilient against censorship and information suppression, and we have been proven to be right time and time again. We were the first people to warn that the death rate of Covid was being exaggerated (the WHO and other establishment institutions predicted a death rate of at least 3%, FAR above the reality). We were the first people to warn that the lockdowns and mask rules did nothing to stop the spread (states that removed restrictions ended up with FALLING infections and deaths). And, we were the first people to warn that the virus was behaving more like a bioweapon, and that its origin was more likely the Level 4 lab in Wuhan, China, right down the street from the animal market that the Chinese government originally claimed was the source of the outbreak.

We were also the first people to warn that the pandemic would be used as a rationale for the enforcement of vaccine passports, which would create a two tear society designed to force people who do not want to take the mRNA vaccines into compliance. We have been proven right once again as the state of Oregon has become the first in the US to demand proof of vaccination (a passport) before residents are able to enter any businesses or establishments.

We have consistently been called “conspiracy theorists” throughout this event by government bureaucrats and the media. But, we were were right about almost everything, and the mainstream media has been wrong about almost everything. Either that, or they have been knowingly lying about almost everything.

This dynamic is important to understand because I believe the situation is far from over and that more crisis events are about to be engineered (or they will magically happen by coincidence).

My biggest concern right now is the upcoming ‘Cyber Polygon’ exercise being headed by the WEF this July. The war game is meant to “simulate” a cyberattack on vital infrastructure that would lead to a shutdown of the global supply chain, or at least the supply chains within certain nations. As I warned in April, the timing of Cyber Polygon is suspicious. As the Covid lockdown agenda is breaking down in the US and the vaccine passports are not winning favor among a large percentage of Americans, the globalists will need another crisis even if they hope to achieve their goals for their Great Reset.

Only weeks after I published my initial concerns about Cyber Polygon, a massive cyberattack was reported which struck the 5,500 mile Colonial Pipeline. The pipeline supplies gasoline to most of the eastern seaboard and after a week of being shut down numerous states were reporting gas shortages. The story has since quietly faded from mainstream news cycles.

In the past few days, yet another major cyberattack has been reported against JBS, a meat company that supplies around 23% of all US beef and pork. Production at JBS has shut down, and now there is the possibility of meat shortages across the country if the problems are not solved soon.

Again, is it just coincidence that these large scale cyberattacks are happening with greater frequency in the lead-up to a WEF’s Cyber Polygon simulation? Or, is Cyber Polygon another Event 201? Is it a beta test for a disaster that is planned for the near future? The WEF is openly comparing future cyber attacks to Covid outbreaks, so I’m inclined to suspect the latter:

The supply chain issue has come to the forefront in the wake of the pandemic as retailers have had to deal with intermittent shortages, and manufacturers are facing a lack of components. Not only that, but inflationary troubles are also weighing on supplies. That said, a cyberattack is another animal entirely; whether or not the event is real or staged, the supply chain is fragile because of global interdependency. In the US, there are many necessities that rely on foreign manufacturers or the “just in time” freight system. Preparedness and long term storage are not a part of the vocabulary of the common US business.

I don’t really know if the supply chain could be shut down completely using a cyberattack, but in combination with inflation and draconian pandemic restrictions, it is possible to disrupt the flow of goods for weeks at a time. It is also impossible to predict how many people are prepared for such a calamity. My hope is that more than 30% of Americans have at least begun the path to prepping, but undoubtedly a majority of the country has not. All it would take is a couple weeks of shortages or a grid down scenario and most people would be facing starvation, among other things.

If Event 201 is any indication, then we should remain vigilant and watch carefully for another major cyberattack affecting the supply chain within two months of the WEF’s Cyber Polygon exercise in July.

--MORE--"

{@@##$$%%^^&&}

"How Technocracy Is Using Unseen Enemies To Panic The World" by By Patrick Wood, June 3, 2021

We live in an age of global deception and delusion of Biblical proportions. Lying is a way of life. Deceiving is taken to the level of an art form. Debauchery and corruption are everywhere.

The slick propaganda that promises to eliminate poverty, create wonderful jobs with dignity and bring lasting peace to the world has more in common with a pile of horse manure than lasting solutions.

I stated in early 2020 that the Great Panic of 2020 (read, “pandemic”) was the start of Technocracy’s coup d’รฉtat. It was global in scope, horribly damaging to the global economy and ripped the fabric of societal status quo to shreds. All of this was supposedly caused by an unseen enemy. And now, the “scientists” behind it, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, are proven to be frauds and hucksters whose science has been discredited as “pseudo-science” at best.

May I remind you that global warming is also an unseen enemy of the same magnitude? The corrupt and bastardized data supporting global warming is as fraudulent and deceptive as that of COVID-19. Lies abound. Fabricated computer models spit out megatons of buffalo chips to tell us we are all going to die when the polar ice caps melt and the seas rise.

I have also warned that there will be other attacks of deception to solidify the global Technocrat takeover.

The Technocrats are delivering.

Two major back-to-back hacking episodes have suddenly appeared to underscore the need for a universal ID system and total control over the Internet. First, the Colonial Pipeline was shut down causing massive fuel shortages on the East Coast. Second, the largest meat producer in the world is hacked bringing production to a halt. Gas prices go up. Meat shortages threaten availability. All thanks to an invisible enemy (the hackers) who we are told are some dark, deep-state entity trying to destroy America.

Let’s pause and remember that the Great Panic of 2020 was preceded by a global pandemic simulation called Event 201, sponsored by the World Economic Forum. This is a fact, not speculation. Event 201 scripted the pandemic response almost to the letter. They were prepared and in control.

This July, the WEF continues another comparable simulation that started in 2020 called Cyber Polygon. Partners listed on the WEF website include IBM, INTERPOL, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), Ericsson, virus maker Trend Micro, Accenture, AIG, Allianz, Amazon, Bank of America, BlackRock, VISA, etc.

Cyber Polygon scripts a global response to a high-profile cyberattack:

With global digitalisation further accelerating and people, companies, and countries becoming ever more interconnected, security of every single element of a supply-chain is key to ensuring the sustainability of the whole system. During the technical exercise, participants will hone their practical skills in mitigating a targeted supply chain attack on a corporate ecosystem in real time(emphasis added)

What a coincidence that two major supply chain hacks suddenly appear out of the blue, affecting potentially hundreds of millions of consumers and scaring the pants off the rest of us. Who are these invisible hackers anyway? Why can’t anyone catch them in the act? Well, anonymity is part of the script (just like the COVID-19 virus) because the cause is of no interest to the likes of the WEF, but only their response to it.

Now let’s bring up UFOs. All of a sudden, talk about UFOs is everywhere. The propaganda machines are in full swing as the government and military release tapes, recordings and documents that suggest aliens have arrived on planet earth. Can they produce one spaceship or one alien body? Nope. How about a clear picture or photograph? Nada. It is just another invisible enemy being conjured up to stoke a socially engineered response in world-wide populations.

On June 2, former President Barack Obama weighed in on aliens and UFO sightings. The Daily Star (UK) reported,

Barack Obama has waded into the conversation about alien life – and has predicted that if evidence of aliens emerges, it will lead to sweeping changes around our planet.

The former US President said that proof of aliens would likely result in the emergence of new religions, and there would be calls for huge sums of money to be spent on weapons systems so we can defend ourselves from possible attack.

He was asked what he thought would happen if we could prove there were aliens probing the Earth but we were unable to make contact with them or interact with them.

“It’s interesting.” he said.

“It wouldn’t change my politics at all. Because my entire politics is premised on the fact that we are these tiny organisms on this little speck floating in the middle of space.

“But no doubt there would be immediate arguments about like, well, we need to spend a lot more money on weapons systems to defend ourselves. New religions would pop up. (emphasis added)

Don’t overthink this. The military is the major propagandist on UFOs and it is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer funds on the planet. President Eisenhower warned us about the Military/Industrial Complex as well as the “technological elite”. Well, it is painfully obvious that they have joined forces and have a common purpose.

So let’s add this up. The air we breathe is polluted with a deadly virus that will probably kill millions; the food and energy supply chain is stopped up and if we don’t starve first, our budgets will be trashed over high energy prices; space aliens have arrived but the Space Force will save us if we give them enough money and control.

Perhaps comparing all of this to a pile of horse manure is overly gratuitous. At the very least, I will say this:  if anyone tries to spook you with some unseen enemy, pass them the shovel and tell them to get busy cleaning out the horse stable.

--MORE--"

{@@##$$%%^^&&}

"The News Media Is Hopelessly, Viciously Biased" by Paul Angel, June 3, 2021

By now, the vast majority of lucid Americans should realize that the left-wing media—newspapers, radio stations, social media outlets, internet sites, etc.—puts out more fake news than Josef Stalin ever did. Getting a story wrong in this business is not a sin, as long as a retraction or correction is published admitting the story was in error. And that’s nothing new. Media outlets have been racing to publish news before verification for decades in a mad rush to get a scoop. What is unforgiveable is willingly publishing stories that the editors know are false simply to dupe the public for one reason or an- other. Recently it has been revealed that CNN, for instance (and almost every other left-wing news outlet), was more interested in forcing Donald Trump out of office than owning up to its obligation to report the news factually. Several examples come to mind.

The Origins of Covid-19

Donald Trump and several Republican legislators, including Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, came out and questioned whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a naturally occurring virus or one that might possibly have escaped from a Chinese lab. Be- cause Trump merely suggested that the virus might have been enhanced in a lab in Wuhan, China, and referred to it as the “China virus,” the left-wing media im- mediately ridiculed the idea, insisting again and again that the virus originated in a crowded “wet market.” Right on cue, their censorship-crazed allies in social media, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, began to limit access to any in- formation that might have corroborated the lab-origin theory. It now appears that Trump was correct, as more and more in- formation is emerging about the dangerous activities at that Wuhan lab, but Jeff Zucker, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and others weren’t worried about the truth. Their only goal was to either discredit the president or make him appear a fool. In fact, they went to great lengths to protect China and get as many “experts” as they could to support their version. Trump may very well be right and they may be wrong, but they are infatuated with Trump, not the truth.

Alternative Treatments for Covid- 19

Early on in the Covid epidemic, President Trump mentioned hydroxy- chloroquine, an anti-malarial drug used successfully for decades. Immediately, the left-wing news conglomerates and their minions began attacking the president for his suggestion. Before you knew it, stories were appearing across television and the internet ridiculing the president and claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. Why didn’t they faithfully investigate the possible bene- fits of hydroxychloroquine, instead of going on a rampage to condemn it? Simply because Donald Trump supported its use. As it turns out, hydroxychloroquine may have been used effectively in Mumbai, India, recently to help stem a rising tide of Covid infections.

To this day, however, every left-leaning news outlet that can is still insisting that it was not hydroxychloroquine that helped stop Covid infections in India. It was, instead, lockdowns. We are not sure whether hydroxychloroquine really does work, but we do know that, even if it does, the Trump-hating media will never reveal it, simply because the much- hated “Orange Man” suggested it.

Vote Fraud

For decades, Democrats have been blaming vote fraud for any losses in political races. For instance, Stacey Abrams is still complaining that vote theft cost her the 2018 race for the governorship of Georgia. To this day, Abrams appears on left-wing news out- lets to cry about her loss. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and others have rightfully questioned whether vote fraud exists and if Dominion voting ma- chines, in particular, were registering votes improperly. That was all fine and dandy for them, but the minute Donald Trump mentioned that there might be a problem with ensuring fair and honest elections in the world’s biggest democratic republic, the censors went wild, condemning the very idea and forcefully spiking any corroborating evidence. Any mention of rigged elections or faulty vote-counting machines or previous suspected election theft was now considered taboo.

“America has the safest and most secure elections in the world,” they claimed, ignoring the mountains of evidence indicating that more than one election in America has been stolen—with both parties being complicit in the thievery. Honestly, there is evidence to suggest that the 2018 governor’s election in Georgia was stolen and a good deal of evidence that tens of thousands of votes were either swiped or miscounted in the 2020 presidential election. But the sad fact is, since Donald Trump mentioned the possibility, it was immediately condemned without any serious investigation on the part of wild- eyed, foaming left-wing media outlets.

The Capitol Protest of Jan. 6

On that morning, Donald Trump addressed an enthusiastic crowd of supporters and asked them to peacefully march to the Capitol to let Congress know there should be an investigation into the possibility that the election was unfair. He never urged them to attack anyone or storm the halls of Congress. But the left- wing media, sensing an opportunity to smear the president, immediately began characterizing the event as an insurrection. Of course, this was not an at- tempted insurrection, but it mattered not. Soon, fake stories were being circulated 24/7 by every Trump-hating news outlet that the president’s “shock troops” had tried to overthrow the government. Members of the crowd, they said, brutally murdered a police officer by bludgeoning him to death with a fire extinguish- er and causing multiple other deaths, glossing over the fact that the only per- son who was actually slain that day was an unarmed female Trump supporter.

Even though an honest investigation would have easily disproven the leftist narrative on the events of that day—none of the arrested protesters has been charged with insurrection—the media still prefer to continue to report their twisted version because it gives them a chance to bash Trump, facts be damned. There are many more examples space forces me to omit here, but the list goes on and on. And it proves that the left-wing media has morphed from a once-neutral source of news on events, to the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. They are all operating in unison, using the same exact catch-phrases and slogans with an identical goal in mind: destroy Donald Trump, and the Republican Party along with him.

Along the way, we will be forced to endure fake stories about how mentally sharp Joe Biden is (he’s really Einstein in disguise), and how giggling nincompoop Kamala Harris is actually fit to lead this nation. It’s all a sham and a shame. The good news is, you know it.

--MORE--"

Now meet the World Economic Forum.

{@@##$$%%^^&&}

"Who Is a “Terrorist” in Biden’s America?
Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.

In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.

Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.

Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation. 

Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power. 

Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.

It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”

In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.

For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included. 

In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.” 

The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.

Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists. 

Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples hereherehere, and here).

Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.

Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.” 

Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason. 

Pillars of Tyranny

The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.” 

The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.

The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.

The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online. 

Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States. 

The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.

Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.” 

The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.” 

Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.

Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing. 

It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Actthus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences. 

The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.

To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):

“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”

Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents. 

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.” 

The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”

In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.

Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy. 

Calling Their Shots?

While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.

Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.

Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:

“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”

This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestrated psyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear. 

It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.

--MORE--"