By Whitney WEBB
Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic fear” method clearly targets mostly those who oppose United States federal 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 Home on Tuesday exposed the nation’s very first government-wide techniquefor confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially inspired violence, the method puts those considered “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that might quickly be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.
Much more troubling is the call to basically fuse intelligence agencies, police, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as undefined foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy explains will rely greatly on a pre-crime orientation focused mostly on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy declares that the government will “shield totally free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents expose that it is poised to gut both.
Indeed, while framed publicly as primarily targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the technique itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to concentrate on the Right but rather will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no difference based upon political view– left, right or center.” It also mentions that an essential objective of this strategic framework is to make sure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance … of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social modification,” no matter a wrongdoer’s political affiliation.
Thinking about that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist primarily in establishment left circles, such people ought to reconsider their support for this brand-new policy given that the above declarations might easily pertain to incorporate Black Lives Matter– associated protests, such as those that took place last summertime, depending upon which political party is in power.
When the new facilities remains in place, it will remain there and will be open to the very same abuses committed by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Horror following September 11, 2001. The history of this brand-new “domestic horror” policy, consisting of its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.
It’s Never ever Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”
In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically inspired violent extremists” as a crucial factor for the brand-new policy and a primary justification for the War on Domestic Fear in general. This was most just recently demonstrated Tuesday in Chief law officer Merrick Garland’s declarationrevealing this brand-new method. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the very same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a hazard to the homeland. The method’s characterization of such people is disturbing.
AG Merrick Garland: “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist risk originates from racially or ethically determined violent extremists particularly those who promote for the superiority of the white race.”
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 15, 2021
For instance, those who “strongly oppose” “all forms of industrialism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how individuals left wing, a number of whom have required industrialism to be dismantled or changed in the US over the last few years, could quickly be targeted in this brand-new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are presently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Disobedience might quickly fall, are likewise consisted of.
In addition, the phrasing shows that it might easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for worldwide “stakeholder capitalism,” as that type of “industrialism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global financial and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism therefore involves both “industrialism” and “corporate globalization.”
The strategy likewise consists of those who “take steps to strongly resist government authority … based upon perceived overreach.” This, obviously, creates a dangerous situation in which the federal government could, purposely or otherwise, execute a policy that is an apparent overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and handle them as such– well prior to the overreach can be challenged in court.
Another informing addition to this group of possible “terrorists” is “any other private or group who engages in violence– or incites imminent violence– in opposition to legislative, regulative or other actions taken by the federal government.” Thus, if the government executes a policy that a large swath of the population discovers abhorrent, such as introducing a new, out of favor war abroad, those considered to be “prompting” resistance to the action online might be considered domestic terrorists.
Such scenarios are not impractical, provided the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “dislike speech” is a type of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for control and abuse. To think the federal government (consisting of the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects a lack of knowledge of United States political history, especially when the main forces behind a lot of terrorist events in the nation are actually US government organizations like the FBI(more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).
Moreover, the initial prepare for the detention of American dissidentsin the event of a national emergency, prepared during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, pointed out popular nonviolent opposition to United States intervention in Latin America as a possible “emergency” that might trigger the activation of those strategies. A number of those “connection of government” protocols stay on the books today and can be set off, depending on the whims of those in power. It is not likely that this brand-new domestic horror framework will be any various relating to nonviolent protest and demonstrations.
Yet another passage in this section of the technique states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some circumstances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other kinds of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the expansion of such “hazardous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these aspects can integrate and amplify dangers to public security.”
Therefore, the existence of “conspiracy theories” and information considered by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public security, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the method involves removing online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it appears inescapable that such efforts will likewise “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment discovers troublesome or threatening for any reason.
Pillars of Tyranny
The techniquenotes in a number of places that this new domestic-terror policy will include a variety of public-private collaborations in order to “develop a neighborhood to resolve domestic terrorism that extends not just throughout the Federal Government however also to crucial partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial federal governments, in addition to foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, scholastic, and more.”
The reference of foreign allies and partners is essential as it recommends an international method to what is supposedly an US “domestic” concern and is yet another actiontowards a global security-state apparatus. A similar multinational method was utilized to terrible result throughout the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was utilized to target and “vanish” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s method are left undefined, but it seems likely that such allies would consist of the remainder of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which currently have well-established information-sharing arrangements with the United States for signals intelligence.
The brand-new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related details, consisting of with foreign governments and personal tech companies; (2) avoiding domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) interrupting and hindering domestic terrorism activity; and (4) challenging long-lasting factors to domestic terrorism.
The very first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through brand-new information-sharing collaborations and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased information mining and analysis of statements made honestly on the web, particularly on social networks, something already done by US intelligence specialists such as Palantir. While the event of such information has actually been ongoing for many years, this policy enables even more to be shared and legally used to make cases versus people considered to have made threats or expressed “hazardous” viewpoints online.
Included in the very 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 actually started imitating an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was exposedthat the BofA had passed to the federal government the private banking info of over two hundred individuals that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in cases of January 6, 2021. It promises, given this passage in the method, that such habits by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.
The 2nd pillar is ostensibly concentrated on avoiding the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that results in the “mobilization of violence.” The technique keeps in mind that this pillar “implies minimizing both supply and demand of recruitment products by limiting extensive availability online and strengthening durability to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.” The technique states that such federal government efforts in the past have a “combined record,” but it goes on to claim that squashing on civil liberties will be avoided due to the fact that the government is “seeking advice from extensively” with undefined “stakeholders” nationwide.
Concerning recruitment, the technique specifies that “these activities are increasingly occurring on Internet-based interactions platforms, consisting of social networks, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those product or services often use other essential advantages.” It adds that “the prevalent schedule of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a nationwide security danger whose front lines are extremely private-sector online platforms.”
The United States government prepares to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to impose their own regards to service that restricts using their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “help with more robust efforts outside the federal government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”
Given the larger meaning of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose industrialism and business globalization as well as those who withstand government overreach, online content talking about these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” concepts could soon be dealt with in the exact same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, nevertheless, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangoutreportedlast November, both UK intelligence and the United States national-security state were establishing strategies to deal with critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.
Another crucial part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” amongst the American public, while censoring “hazardous content” shared by “terrorists” along with by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that important reporting of US federal government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the item of “Russian disinformation,” a now challenged claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This brand-new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.
It also keeps in mind that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to reverse the Smith-Mundt Act, therefore lifting the ban on the federal government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.
The 3rd pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors examining and attempting domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to leap as the meaning of “domestic terrorist” is broadened. It also seeks to explore whether “legal reforms might meaningfully and materially increase our capability to secure Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while at the same time defending against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to previous public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy contacts us to “empower” state and regional police to deal with domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on residents deemed harmful or subversive for any variety of reasons.
To that effect, the technique 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 neighborhood], are integrating an increased concentrate on domestic terrorism into current intelligence items and leveraging present systems of info and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related material and signs with non-Federal partners. These companies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the advancement of mobile applications created to provide a more comprehensive reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while concurrently fine-tuning that support based on partner feedback.”
Such an intelligence tool might quickly be, for instance, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence firms, the DHS, and several US cops departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on federal government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the questionable and extremely secretive Main Core databaseof United States dissidents.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic horror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a declarationthat DHS would continue “developing essential partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Avoidance Programs and Collaborations(CP3) to recognize prospective threats and avoid terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Avoidance this past Might, officially “supports communities throughout the United States to avoid people from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”
The fourth pillar of the technique is without a doubt the most nontransparent and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to deal with the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “taking on racism in America,” a lofty objective for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogizedCongress’ most ardent segregationist and who was an essential designerof the 1994 crime costs. Also, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate take care of those who pose a risk to themselves or others.”
In regard to the latter proposition, the Trump administration, in a quote to “stop mass shootings before they take place,” thought about a proposition to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA”that would keep track of the online interactions of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” indication that somebody might be “activating towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or embrace this policy, the Biden administration has actually recently revealed strategiesto do so.
Finally, the technique suggests that this 4th pillar becomes part of a “wider top priority”: “improving faith in government and dealing with the extreme polarization, sustained by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often directed through social networks platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” To put it simply, fostering rely on government while at the same time censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is an essential policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror method.
Calling Their Shots?
While this is a brand-new strategy, its origins depend on the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general of the United States William Barr officially announcedin a memorandum that a new “national disturbance and early engagement program” targeted at spotting those “mobilizing towards violence” prior to they devote any crime would release in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disturbance and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has actually involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its production.
Barr’s statement of DEEP followed his disturbing “prediction” in July 2019 that “a significant incident may take place at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these problems.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings took place, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which eliminated twenty-three and about which lots of questions stay unansweredconcerning the FBI’s obvious foreknowledge of the event. After these events occurred in 2019, Trump required the production of a government backdoor into encryption and the extremely pre-crime system that Barr announced quickly afterwards in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely completing what Barr began.
Certainly, a “forecast” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann throughout a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was mostly neglected by the media as it coincided with an international increase of issue relating to COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the advancement of the government’s post-9/ 11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked carefully with the intelligence neighborhood, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” occasion in the United States:
“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and abroad seems like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, perhaps not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it constructing and we don’t quite understand how to stop it.”
This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were rapidly identified as such by both the media and popular political leaders, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, obviously, figures plainly in the validation for the new domestic-terror technique, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and possibly the FBI, were directly involvedin helping with the breachof the Capitol. In addition, when one thinks about that the QAnon motion, which had a clear role in cases of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestratedpsyop, the government hand in developing this circumstance seems clear. It goes without saying that the official reasons provided for these militaristic”domestic fear” policies, which the United States has currently executed abroad– causing much
more horror than it has prevented– does not validate the creation of an enormous new national-security infrastructure that intends to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this brand-new technique, as part of a more comprehensive effort to”improve faith in federal government,”integrates domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who suspect federal government heralds completion of even the illusion of democracy in the United States. thelastamericanvagabond.com