FBI Role In 1/6/21 Capitol Breach

Yes. It appears that the FBI very likely did have a role in organizing the January 6th Capitol breach.

Questions About the FBI’s Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media

The FBI has been manufacturing and directing terror plots and criminal rings for decades. But now, reverence for security state agencies reigns.

The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups — CNNNBC NewsThe Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.

The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.

The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reported were the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”

What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had embedded informants and other infiltrators in the groups planning the January 6 Capitol riot. What would be shocking and strange — bizarre and inexplicable — is if the FBI did not have those groups under tight control. And yet the suggestion that FBI informants may have played some role in the planning of the January 6 riot was instantly depicted as something akin to, say, 9/11 truth theories or questions about the CIA’s role in JFK’s assassination or, until a few weeks ago, the COVID lab-leak theory: as something that, from the perspective of Respectable Serious Circles, only a barely-sane, tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic would even entertain.

This reaction is particularly confounding given how often the FBI did exactly this during the first War on Terror, and how commonplace discussions of this tactic were in mainstream liberal circles. Over the last decade, I reported on countless cases for The Guardian and The Intercept where the FBI targeted some young American Muslims they viewed as easily manipulated — due to financial distress, emotional problems, or both — and then deployed informants and undercover agents to dupe them into agreeing to join terrorist plots that had been created, designed and funded by the FBI itself, only to then congratulate themselves for breaking up the plot which they themselves initiated. As I asked in one headline about a particularly egregious entrapment case: “Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats?”

In 2011, Mother Jones published an outstanding, lengthy investigation by reporter Trevor Aaronson, entitled “The Informations,” which asked: “The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?” Aaronson covered numerous similar cases for The Intercept where the FBI designed, directed and even funded the terror plots and other criminal rings they then boasted of disrupting. A widely praised TEDTalk by Aaronson, which, in the words of organizers, “reveals a disturbing FBI practice that breeds terrorist plots by exploiting Muslim-Americans with mental health problems,” featured this central claim: “There’s an organization responsible for more terrorism plots in the United States than al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab and ISIS combined: The FBI.”

The Guardian, Nov. 16, 2011

So far from being some warped conspiracy theory, that the FBI purposely targets vulnerable people and infiltrates groups in order to create attacks and direct targets to engage in them is indisputably true, well established, and a commonly reported fact in mainstream liberal media. Exactly that has been happening for decades.

Read more at:Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Stewart Rhodes Breaks The Entire Capitol “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open – RevolverIs the FBI protecting “Oath Keeper” kingpin Stewart Rhodes from federal charges because he’s one of theirs? Did Rhodes entrap his people?https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-missing-link-fbi-unindicted-co-conspirator/

23 thoughts on “FBI Role In 1/6/21 Capitol Breach


    Investigative journalist, Darren Beattie joins the War Room to discuss the details of his latest bombshell article about what he calls “The highest-stakes, most dangerous and most important story in the country.”

    He says his previous article, reported on by Tucker Carlson is the reason why the NSA began spying on the latter.

    Beattie says, “It all boils down to one question. Was 1/6 an ‘intelligence failure’, as FBI Director Christopher Wray says – or was it an intelligence set-up?”

    He says one clue that it was a set-up lies in the upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the 1/6 indictments made against members of the key militia groups implicated, who played various roles in the Capitol Riot and who have not been charged for the same activities — in some cases, more severe activities — as those named alongside them in the indictments. Beattie believes these individuals remain unindicted as a result of grants of immunity, because they are either federal agents or assets.

    “And yet, a sandwich shop owner faces 60 years for saying, ‘No, no, not yet.’ That discrepancy was tremendously suspicious to us.

    In this second piece, we were able to refine this question still further by asking…about one of those unindicted persons referenced in the charging documents…the head of the Oath Keepers Militia, the biggest militia in the United States…and we basically open up the story with the following: ‘Hey Republicans, you can crack open the entire story of January 6, 2021 (“1/6”) with one simple, relentless question: what is the FBI and Army Counterintelligence’s relationship with Stewart Rhodes?’

    “I would not have published this if I didn’t have an extreme confidence level in this piece. If this is right, that means that the head of the major militia imputed to 1/6 would have had a relationship with the Federal Government, either as an informant or an undercover agent.

    “If that’s the case, it’s not a stretch whatsoever to say that 1/6 was actually orchestrated by the government, that it was actually a set-up…This false 1/6 narrative, that I believe was engineered as an infiltration operation; this false narrative is now the key pretext that our National Security state is using to ram through Patriot Act 2.0, the Domestic War on Terror.”

    Beattie believes that the Intelligence Community has gone rogue and that. “If we don’t bring them to heel, we don’t have a country.”

    Running Time: 6 mins


    Also see:




      1. The recipient was his F.B.I. handler.

        In the middle of an unfolding melee that shook a pillar of American democracy — the peaceful transfer of power — the bureau had an informant in the crowd, providing an inside glimpse of the action, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times. In the informant’s version of events, the Proud Boys, famous for their street fights, were largely following a pro-Trump mob consumed by a herd mentality rather than carrying out any type of preplanned attack.

        After meeting his fellow Proud Boys at the Washington Monument that morning, the informant described his path to the Capitol grounds where he saw barriers knocked down and Trump supporters streaming into the building, the records show. At one point, his handler appeared not to grasp that the building had been breached, the records show, and asked the informant to keep him in the loop — especially if there was any violence.

        The use of informants always presents law enforcement officials with difficult judgments about the credibility and completeness of the information they provide. In this case, the records obtained by The Times do not directly address whether the informant was in a good position to know about plans developed for Jan. 6 by the leadership of the Proud Boys, why he was cooperating, whether he could have missed indications of a plot or whether he could have deliberately misled the government.

        But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

        At the same time, the new information is likely to complicate the government’s efforts to prove the high-profile conspiracy charges it has brought against several members of the Proud Boys.

        Dig deeper into the moment.
        Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.
        On Jan. 6, and for months after, the records show, the informant, who was affiliated with a Midwest chapter of the Proud Boys, denied that the group intended to use violence that day. In lengthy interviews, the records say, he also denied that the extremist organization planned in advance to storm the Capitol. The informant’s identity was not disclosed in the records.

        The records describing the informant’s account of Jan. 6 — excerpts from his interviews and communications with the F.B.I. before, during and after the riot — dovetail with assertions made by defense lawyers who have argued that even though several Proud Boys broke into the Capitol, the group did not arrive in Washington with a preset plot to storm the building.

        They also raise new questions about the performance of the F.B.I. in tracking the threat from far-right groups like the Proud Boys.

        Editors’ Picks

        Bushwig Grows Up

        A Parisian Home That Breaks With Tradition

        Know Your ‘NCIS’ From Your ‘CSI’?
        The records — provided to The Times on the condition that they not be directly quoted — show the F.B.I. was investigating at least two other participants in the rally on Jan. 6 and asked the informant to make contact with them, suggesting that they might be Proud Boys.

        Moreover, the records indicate that F.B.I. officials in Washington were alerted in advance of the attack that the informant was traveling to the Capitol with several other Proud Boys.

        The F.B.I. also had an additional informant with ties to another Proud Boys chapter that took part in the sacking of the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter, raising questions about the quality of the bureau’s informants and what sorts of questions they were being asked by their handlers before Jan. 6.

        Christopher A. Wray, the bureau’s director, acknowledged to Congress in March that the F.B.I. was studying the quality of the intelligence it had gathered about Jan. 6.

        “Anytime there’s an attack, especially one that’s this horrific, that strikes right at the heart of our system of government, right at the time the transfer of power is being discussed, you can be darn tootin’ that we are focused very, very hard on how can we get better sources, better information, better analysis so that we can make sure that something like what happened on Jan. 6th never happens again,” he said during the congressional hearing.

        In a statement, the F.B.I. said that intelligence gathering was central to its mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.

        “While the F.B.I.’s standard practice is not to discuss its sources and methods, it is important to understand that sources provide valuable information regarding criminal activity and national security matters,” the bureau said.

        The new information was revealed at a time when misinformation continues to circulate among far-right commentators and websites accusing the F.B.I. of having used informants or agents to stage the attack on Jan. 6. But if anything, the records appear to show that the informant’s F.B.I. handler was slow to grasp the gravity of what was happening that day. And the records show that the informant traveled to Washington at his own volition, not at the request of the F.B.I.

        The question of whether extremist groups like the Proud Boys conspired in advance of Jan. 6 to organize the worst assault on the Capitol in more than 200 years is one of the most important avenues of inquiry being pursued by the authorities. But the records describing the informant are only one piece of a much larger puzzle that includes other information about the group.

        The informant, who started working with the F.B.I. in July 2020, appears to have been close to several other members of his Proud Boys chapter, including some who have been charged in the attack. But it is not clear from the records obtained by The Times how well he knew the group’s top leaders or whether he was in the best position to learn about potential plans to storm the Capitol.

        As more and more Proud Boys have been arrested in connection with the attack, the group has been increasingly plunged into an atmosphere of suspicion about the presence of informants in their ranks.

        The dark mood started three weeks after the riot when it suddenly emerged that Enrique Tarrio, the group’s leader, had himself worked as an F.B.I. informant well before he joined the Proud Boys.

        Mr. Tarrio was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6, having been ordered by a local judge to stay away from Washington after his arrest days earlier on charges of illegally possessing ammunition magazines and burning a Black Lives Matter banner after a pro-Trump rally in December. He is currently serving a five-month sentence on the charges.



    1. As scores of Proud Boys made their way, chanting and shouting, toward the Capitol on Jan. 6, one member of the far-right group was busy texting a real-time account of the march to his handler at the F.B.I.

      He provided the bureau with an inside glimpse of the action, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times.
      The F.B.I. had a source inside the riot.



      1. Tucker Carlson reveals a powerpoint from the U.S. Army justifying vaccine mandates with a slide that says “How many children were sacrificed to Satan for the vaccine?” along with listing the 7 tenets of Satanism



      2. The January 6 Insurrection Hoax
        September 2021 • Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball
        Roger Kimball
        Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion

        Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He earned his B.A. from Bennington College and his M.A. and M.Phil. in philosophy from Yale University. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Book Review, and is a columnist for The Spectator World, American Greatness, and The Epoch Times. He is editor or author of several books, including The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and Vox Populi: The Perils and Promises of Populism.

        FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintEmail Download Issue
        The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

        Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

        An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

        At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

        I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, and even—according to Joe Biden last April—since the Civil War!

        Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

        I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event.

        On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power.

        In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration.

        From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” former British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens.

        But in truth, the Steele dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and its favored candidate disapproved.

        The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences.

        What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Congressman Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

        General Michael Flynn, Trump’s original National Security Advisor, had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of this political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation.

        The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham is indicting Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. But it seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia collusion hoax.

        At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol, but even more from the government’s response to that protest.

        Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild Trump supporters, supposedly at Trump’s instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

        According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus.

        Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

        The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has.

        Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

        The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

        The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” narrative in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow other protesters to pull her out.

        Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report gone viral of The New York Times, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.


        The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

        Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to FBI vetting, with some of them sent packing?

        Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protesters? More pictures of FBI informants covertly salted among the crowd?

        My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

        In truth, there is little threat of domestic terror in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

        It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration.

        These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: over 74 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters.

        Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we can’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, as least temporarily, to an American oligarchy.

        As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

        The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

        “Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branches in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference.

        Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus.

        The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed.

        You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly-installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

        Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the President of the United States and people who supported him: the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, for instance, proposing to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, and Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract.

        Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in Orwell’s 1984) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” Trump’s supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

        Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

        Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

        Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.

        Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

        I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.

        Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.

        As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

        Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

        Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

        “This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

        This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

        Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

        That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

        Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”




  2. January 6th — What Really Happened?

    This is one of the most important issues facing America today. What really happened on January 6h is a tug-of-war between the leftwing propaganda tyrrants and honest journalists, and bloggers and anyone with a voice to fight for the truth.

    One might have thought this would end after the bogus so-called “second “impeachment of Donald Trump. But no, Nancy Pelosi and Schumer are intent on continuing their desperate witch hunt to insnare Trump for anything they can come up with. They are driven by a pathological hatred that is only grasped by their psychological profiles as “Ponerist” That means, organized psychopths, in both government and corporations, ie; the corporatist oligarchy.

    The fact that the Biden regime is tearing apart the nation hand over fist is obvious, but happening under the shadow of the outrages of Pelosi, Schumer, and now Liz Cheney, spawn of the war criminal Dick Cheney (another prime psycho).

    The US stands in clear and present danger from the attempt to merge the nation with the so-called “Great Reset” of the Davos Gang. The Covid ordeal was a clue that the timeline of their agenda has been set on fastforward>>

    We must focus our energies on the understanding of how quickly this crisis is emerging.




  3. **SETUP: On Jan 6 Secret Service Offered to Escort Roger Stone Into the Capitol**

    **Roger Stone was saved by an angel.**

    Roger Stone: You’ve just hit a very good point, and that is when the latest narrative on January 6th, which is the great recycle. One outlet said that the Feds are now focused on the fact that I was the mastermind – categorically false. Wasn’t there, didn’t know anything about it in advance, didn’t have any involvement whatsoever.
    But I did reveal, and I was excoriated for it, that when I was in my hotel room at the Willard, shortly after the President’s speech, there was a call from the secret service, offering to escort me to the head of the march and up to the Capitol which I declined. By the way two pastors, two reverand protestant ministers and a police officer overheard all of that. Those are called witnesses. So for those who say, oh that’s made up, no it’s not made up. It’s a fact. It’s not a conspiracy.

    Alex Jones: And you were smart, you left early, you got out of there. You told me, ‘this is a cluster ‘. These people are idiots. I said, ‘come on Roger’. I mean I really twisted your arm. I mean I just thought that, I can’t believe how surrounded Trump was with traitors.

    SETUP: On Jan 6 Secret Service Offered to Escort Roger Stone Into the Capitol – Mad Patriot News




  4. **IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.**
    **The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,**
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.



    1. Subpoena Tsunami: House Democrats Issue Hundreds of Secret Subpoenas Targeting GOP Colleagues and Others
      by jonathanturley

      “We have quite an exhaustive list of people. I won’t tell you who they are.” With those words, House Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) confirmed that a subpoena storm was about to be unleashed in the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot in Congress. The targets would include Republican members, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who have already been told to preserve their phone records to be surrendered to the committee. The Democrats are reportedly trying to prove their prior claims that Republicans conspired or assisted “insurrectionists,” even though the FBI reportedly found no evidence of a planned insurrection.

      The Democrats’ move to investigate members of the opposing party is a dangerous precedent in an institution that has always protected the privacy and confidentiality of phone and office records.

      Two months ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was on practically every network denouncing one of “the most dangerous assaults on our democracy” — meaning the Trump administration’s search of phone log information related to Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) while looking for leakers. For his part, Swalwell publicly fretted about this “fragile time for our democracy” if members could have their phone logs seized through secret surveillance orders issued to telephone companies.

      After those disclosures, I testified in Congress on the need for greater protections from secret surveillance for members and reporters alike. At the hearing, the Democratic members expressed nothing short of disgust at the notion of such seizures of member phone logs.

      Thompson has now admitted that he has sent letters to telecommunications companies to preserve documents — including phone logs — for hundreds of people, including members of Congress. He would offer only a type of “the usual suspects” response when asked for specificity: “you know, in terms of telecom companies, they’re the ones that pretty much you already know, maybe the networks, the social media platforms, those kinds of things.” Reports indicate that among the “hundreds” will be Trump family members and leading Republicans. The House has decided to subpoena them all and let God (and the courts) sort them out.

      This is not the first such subpoena tsunami in the House. A couple years ago, Schiff unleashed a massive secret surveillance order to companies. Schiff expressly barred the companies from informing targets — another abusive tactic that was the subject of the June House hearing. That practice was denounced by many as negating Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act which allows for targets to challenge such orders.

      As with the Schiff subpoenas, Thompson is not only refusing to list names of the targets, he has also asked the companies to keep the subpoenas secret. It is not clear that Congress has such enforcement authority for secret subpoenas. What’s more, the Democratic House Judiciary Chairman denounced such secrecy demands just last month, saying “they deny American citizens, companies, and institutions their basic day in court and, instead, they gather their evidence entirely in secret.”

      The storm of secret subpoenas also seems to run against the thrust of recent Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Mazars, which addressed congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. In sending the case back for further consideration, the court recognized the broad authority of Congress to issue subpoenas; however, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that congressional subpoenas must address a “valid legislative purpose” and be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”

      The “task” at hand in this subpoena storm is highly questionable. The announcement follows an extensive investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department which reportedly did not find any planned insurrection on Jan. 6. The vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not charged. Of the roughly 570 people arrested, virtually all face relatively minor charges for trespass or parading. Only 40 face conspiracy charges. As with violent protests in places like Portland and Seattle, a small percentage of Jan. 6 protesters came prepared and eager for violence and property destruction.

      The FBI has already seized the phone records for those arrested, including the small number facing more serious charges. Nevertheless, according to media reports, they found that “90 to 95 percent of these are one-off cases … There was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

      Moreover, despite federal investigations, neither the FBI nor Congress found any evidence to support the much publicized claims of Democratic members that Republican colleagues helped plan or supplied access or “reconnaissance” tours to “insurrectionists.”

      As someone who has long favored congressional authority (and once represented the House), my natural default still remains with the authority of the House to acquire records under Article I. However, even if there were a cognizable legislative purpose, it would not make this move right. Democratic leaders, it seems, clearly do not like the fact that the FBI did not establish a conspiracy to overthrow the country or identify co-conspirators among their Republican colleagues. So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members.

      Of course, this is not what Schiff previously denounced as the “politicization of the Justice Department.” Congress is by definition politicized, which is why such fishing expeditions targeting the opposing party are so dangerous. It is using subpoenas to try to embarrass or label members of the minority.
      The “task” at hand in this subpoena storm is highly questionable. The announcement follows an extensive investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department which reportedly did not find any planned insurrection on Jan. 6. The vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not charged. Of the roughly 570 people arrested, virtually all face relatively minor charges for trespass or parading. Only 40 face conspiracy charges. As with violent protests in places like Portland and Seattle, a small percentage of Jan. 6 protesters came prepared and eager for violence and property destruction.

      The FBI has already seized the phone records for those arrested, including the small number facing more serious charges. Nevertheless, according to media reports, they found that “90 to 95 percent of these are one-off cases … There was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

      Moreover, despite federal investigations, neither the FBI nor Congress found any evidence to support the much publicized claims of Democratic members that Republican colleagues helped plan or supplied access or “reconnaissance” tours to “insurrectionists.”

      As someone who has long favored congressional authority (and once represented the House), my natural default still remains with the authority of the House to acquire records under Article I. However, even if there were a cognizable legislative purpose, it would not make this move right. Democratic leaders, it seems, clearly do not like the fact that the FBI did not establish a conspiracy to overthrow the country or identify co-conspirators among their Republican colleagues. So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members.

      Of course, this is not what Schiff previously denounced as the “politicization of the Justice Department.” Congress is by definition politicized, which is why such fishing expeditions targeting the opposing party are so dangerous. It is using subpoenas to try to embarrass or label members of the minority.

      The use of subpoenas for political purposes is nothing new, particularly to paint others as “un-American.” In 1957, the Supreme Court reviewed the contempt conviction of a union official, John Thomas Watkins, who refused to name communist union members to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction 6-1, and Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Citing the statements of House members, the Court found that “the predominant result can only be the invasion of the private rights of individuals.”

      As in the Watkins case, it would seem the point here is to establish that key figures of the opposing party are un-American or “insurrectionists.” Indeed, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) even sought to censure members who refused to call the riot an “insurrection.”

      There are times when the Congress may have serious concerns over whether an administration scuttled or undermined an investigation. No such claim has been made here.

      This is a fishing expedition on an oceanic scale.

      Jan. 6 remains a national disgrace and a desecration of our constitutional process. Many of us welcomed any further inquiries that might shed light on what occurred or what might have prevented this tragedy. However, that is no license to weaponize a national tragedy for political purposes.




  5. There will be “no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it,” says classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson.

    In this episode, Hanson breaks down the problems he sees plaguing American society today, from the assault on meritocracy to the “Frankenstein monster” of moral relativism.

    Throughout society today, elites justify their control of or manipulation of information as for the good of the people, Hanson says. It’s the “noble lie”: “I’m smarter than you. I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good…Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying,” Hanson says.

    Jan Jekielek: Victor Davis Hanson, so great to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

    Victor Davis Hanson: Thank you.

    Mr. Jekielek: Victor, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how some people call us living in a post-truth world. Others I’ve spoken with on this show describe it as an epistemic crisis.

    I want to talk about this, but I’ve been watching this play out—you and I have both been watching this play out: how this story of the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus has changed over the last year and a bit. It’s pretty fascinating.

    Mr. Hanson: Well, remember what happened. The Chinese government said that this was some kind of bat or pangolin jump from nature to human transmission. We had the utmost confidence in the WHO, World Health Organization, and they confirmed that. Dr. Tedros said that it was non-transmissible between humans and it originated in a wet market.

    There had been little rumors that there was a Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, so that was the narrative. Donald Trump, remember, was doing trade deals at the time with China, so he actually accepted all of this.

    Dr. [Anthony] Fauci was telling us, as the head of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that we shouldn’t worry and it won’t be a pandemic. For the first January and February, that was the narrative. Then when it started to spread, people started to notice that people in Wuhan had been locked down from other parts of China, but they were perfectly able or maybe encouraged to go to European ports of entry or LAX or JFK.

    I think we had about a million people in that 11- or 12-day period when the Chinese communist government said, “Nobody from Wuhan is going to get near us, but you’re all going to go to the United States, if you wish.” So that was starting to break down this narrative that it was just a benign infectious coronavirus, and then suddenly people started to whisper there was a Chinese military presence in the lab.

    There were dissident voices who said that the Chinese government was not telling you the truth about the severity or the transmissibility or the infectiousness of the virus, and then there were people, dissident voices who said, “We don’t have an animal species with the virus. We only have the human species, so we’ve got to find the animal.”

    Then all of a sudden, this was hit with huge pushback—Dr. [Peter] Daszak, Dr. Fauci, WHO. How dare you try to be such a racist? Then the Chinese communist government was giving us propaganda talking points, which the left eagerly [used].

    Then Donald Trump, in late April, excuse me, late March, started to say that was the virus and that thing came from the lab, and they were experimenting on gain-of-function, and he had probably seen intelligence reports. In fact, I think he said he did, and that became taboo because Donald Trump had said something.

    This time, it wasn’t just, “There is no Russian collusion,” or “Hydroxychloroquine has efficacy,” but it was, “The Wuhan lab is connected with the origins of the virus.” So anything that Donald Trump said was true had to be false.

    It was an election year, after all. Then the scientific community created—we created this word, “the science.” The science says, the genome says, the virologist said. Beneath this entire façade, there were motivations. Dr. Fauci had subsidized Echo Health, Dr. Daszak, with sizable grants who then had rechanneled some of that money into the virology lab to conduct gain-of-function research that was banned in the United States.

    So then people reacted accordingly. We would not want American public to think that we encouraged a gain-of-function ability of a virus that was otherwise confined originally to a bat or pangolin, but we took that virus and changed it and it got out of this lab. That was about a year’s narrative.

    My interest in all of this is not that it became politically incorrect to question the wet market thesis and to suggest the lab, but if you think about it rationally, a lot of people died. Just think if in January or February, the Chinese government had come out and said, “We were engaged in research, and we are not solely culpable because American public health officials gave us some money, so we’re jointly culpable, and we’ll jointly solve this problem. But this thing is really scary because it’s a gain-of-function, unnatural, engineered virus.”

    The whole world would have just panicked, and we would have had lockdowns, and we would have had quarantines early. We might have stopped it.

    But instead, anybody who suggested this was demonized, ostracized, canceled. Nobody cared about the truth. The truth was [evaluated by] are the aims or the ends to hurt Donald Trump? If it is, any means necessary are justified.

    Mr. Jekielek: This wasn’t just the politicians and the bureaucrats that were holding this line, but there were major scientific periodicals. I’m thinking of “Nature,” one of the preeminent biology journals in the world, at least one of them, that were also very much holding this line, shockingly so, I think.

    Mr. Hanson: Yes, I think one of the most egregious examples was “Lancet” in Britain where Dr. Daszak had actually encouraged a group of preeminent virologists and epidemiologists to speak with one voice and condemn anybody who would dare connect the lab with the origins of COVID, even though they were in the same city, very logical connection to be made.

    What he didn’t tell us, under the guise of “the science,” was that he was engaged, as we said, in transferring funding to this lab, and more importantly, some of the people that he was organizing to sign that letter had conflicts of interest as well. The letter was not: let’s open a debate and investigation. The letter was that this is anti-scientific, or nonscientific, or how dare you?

    Because looming behind all these discussions is the unmentionable, the unfathomable, the thing that terrifies us, and what would that be? That would be that an American preeminent scientist, doctor, medical professional, architect of national health policy—a Dr. Fauci, for example—knowingly channeled gain-of-function research money through a third party to China, and that that had something to do with an enhanced virus that then leaked when that laboratory was under suspicion prior of having lax security measures.

    If that were true, then if you reduce it down to its essence, the United States had some culpability and did not tell the world that they had subsidized the creation of this satanic virus.

    Mr. Jekielek: So you think this is all a political construct then or is there something deeper here?

    Mr. Hanson: The lesson of all of this is multi-faceted. It has shaken the confidence in professionals with letters after their name—so BA, MA, PhD, JD, whatever the particular rubric is. We don’t believe that the World Health Organization is immune from Chinese propaganda.

    We don’t believe, after we read the emails from Dr. Fauci, that because he’s an eminent MD and researcher that he deserves utmost respect, especially when he said that he deliberately mislead us about masks, so that people wouldn’t have a run on masks.

    He deliberately mislead us about herd immunity so that people would get vaccinated. In other words, he used what we in classics call the Platonic noble lie. I’m smarter than you, I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good. You, the deplorables, are ignorant. You’ll benefit from my lie. Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying.

    It really shook our confidence in that and then all of these organs of liberal expression in the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Network News. We all thought that they were in the civil liberties tradition. The more light, remember, democracy dies in darkness, so to speak, bring the light out. But they were actually collaborating with the establishment scientific community and the progressive political movement to squash any mention of a lab.

    And then they did something that was, I think, unconscionable. When Donald Trump tried to irritate the Chinese, and he called it the Chinese virus, he was doing what we do by calling it the Spanish flu of 1918, or the Ebola virus because, or Lyme disease in Connecticut.

    We’re speaking in the San Joaquin Valley. I grew up with something called Valley fever. I went to Stanford University and people say, “You live in the valley? What’s that Valley fever you guys all die of?” The point is that you always have a geographical connotation, and all Trump was doing is trying to needle them or troll them, but he was not being racist.

    But then they fabricated this enormous narrative that Donald Trump was a racist, and therefore, nothing he said could be valuable. This would be later on very valuable in this post-truth world to say that even though data showed that overwhelmingly on a per capita basis, African-American male youth were overrepresented, if I can use that term, in attacks on Asians, and these were hate crimes that were not commensurate with their percentages of population, it didn’t matter.

    People said, “We’re not going to report that crime,” or “we’re going to get a member of the Asian-American community to say that it’s still white people doing this because Donald Trump created the climate by using the word China or Wuhan virus.” So all of this was not connected with reality. It was not fact-based.

    Mr. Jekielek: I think we’ve been talking about this idea that reality, what actually happened in a situation, seems to in past years become a lot less relevant or a lot less important to the general discourse. That of course can be used for political expediency. There’s an ideological bent to this.

    Mr. Hanson: Yes. Well, in the Western empirical tradition, the Socratic tradition, the Aristotelian tradition, there were always dissidents. We call them the sophists. Sophist was not a bad word in antiquity. It just meant somebody who was wise like a sophist.

    It could be a deprecatory word, but basically they challenged facts and reality. They said, “If I can prove an argument to you that you can be persuaded by words, then it’s true, or otherwise you wouldn’t be able to be persuaded,” and so the sophists began saying that there were things that were relative. You say honey is sweet. That’s only because you think it’s sweet. And then this person doesn’t like honey. Therefore, it’s not sweet—rather than, let’s systematically, empirically, in the inductive mood, get 100 people, poll them, and 99 percent will say, “Honey is sweeter than salt.” Therefore, it’s sweet.

    But you see, they always take the exception to destroy the function or the foundation of empiricism. So that wasn’t new.

    In the 19th century, Marxism—based on, there was Hegel and Nietzsche who were contributors to it—but it said, “These norms, these traditions, these laws, these canons are artificially constructed, and they’re constructed by a power class, people who inherited wealth or influence or got it through ill-gotten gains.”

    And they’ve set up an arbitrary system of rules. They call this shoplifting, so they put you in jail when you go into a store and take something that’s not yours, but who says that they didn’t commit a crime to have the money to have that store?

    So it was a method of being relativist and say that every single crime or every single thought, there was a class struggle behind it. Take that idea from Marx, and over the next century, it was going to be translated in the Frankfurt School, but especially by people in Italy like Gramsci and then back here in the United States, by Herbert Marcuse.

    I was a student of Norman O. Brown’s at UC Santa Cruz. They said that this relativism is not just Marxist class struggle because after all, we don’t really have a class struggle in the United States. Free market capitalism can make a guy on Monday who’s middle class on Tuesday wealthy, and vice versa.

    But they said, “It’s racist,” and race is immutable, it’ll never change. LeBron will be a victim the rest of his life, so will Oprah, so will Meghan Markle. It doesn’t matter how much money they have. This was a very valuable tool for the left because it said, “You don’t have to worry about losing your constituency.” LeBron is always going to be a victim because he’s black, and he’s always suffering from an oppressor class that have set up arbitrary rules, and so now when we look at this woke movement, this anti-empirical movement you’re talking about, CNN, Don Lemon can be a multi-millionaire, it doesn’t matter. He is a victim because he’s black, because the society is systemically racist.

    Then notice how the vocabulary came in from the postmodernists. If you can’t see it, and it’s not fact-based, then it’s systemic, it’s insidious, or it’s a micro-aggression. So they had to come up with words to create a reality that otherwise wasn’t observable to the senses, and that was an untruth.

    But basically, we’re in a climate that started on campus with academics, and it’s now permeated the larger culture that says crimes, laws, SAT scores, ACTs, GPAs, these are all constructs that are used to discriminate against people that don’t have access to power, and these people in our modern American society are more likely to be oppressed because of race.

    We’re speaking in Fresno County. I can go right out my door and find 10 white people that are 20 years old that have no privilege. They’re either without BAs or high school degrees, and they’re working as welders, forklift drivers, long haul truckers. But according to this critical racial theory, they have a privilege that Oprah, the $2 billion worth Oprah, lacks because they’re white, and they exercise that privilege every day when they drive their forklift around.

    That’s where we are. It’s like Alice through the looking glass. Everything’s upside down.

    Mr. Jekielek: This is something I’ve been thinking about. Why this apparent war on merit, or war on even talent, I suppose?

    Mr. Hanson: When you mention talent, you just mentioned a hierarchy. So if I was a sophist of the ancient or modern brand, I would say to you, “Well, what does talent mean? Define talent for me.”

    You’re going to say, “Well, Victor, when you want to see if you’re going to be first chair violin, or second chair violin, or third chair in an orchestra. We’re going to put one person behind a wall and the other person behind a wall so you don’t know their identities, and you’re going to listen to the music.”

    I’m going to say, “Oh yes,” but one person brought up in a particular cultural environment knows the technique of pleasing a particular violin strain to that particular audience that’s also privileged, and who to say is that strain is not as or more or less engaging than the person who happens to be a person of color?

    I’m not making this up. This is now an attack on blind merit, so to speak, and this applies to everything. The danger of it is that there’s no end to it, it’s nihilistic, and it starts to impair the safety of society.

    I’ve been to a lot of places in the world, and one of the things I always say to myself: why does the bathroom not work? Why is there trash outside? Why is the bus broken down? Why when somebody pulls out in front of somebody, they get out and fight?

    I always come with the same conclusion: because they hire their first cousin. In other words, when I go to the Middle East, it’s a tribal society, and merit is not a criterion that people respect. It’s got a higher cronyism than the United States. We all have that, but it’s the aberration, not the norm.

    Once you get rid of merit, and you start to use deductive qualifications, then you’re going to have an insidious decline. You can see it, if you think over the last 50 years in the age of affirmative action. What was the joke that everybody said? I think it was Cassius Clay, later, Muhammad Ali, when he was flying once, he said, “I want to make sure this pilot is of a particular race.” He was trying to say that he didn’t want affirmative action. They used to say nuclear plant operator.

    The reason I mention that is that now we know that United Airlines is going to have pilot training that’s going to be based on racial criteria on who is going to be accepted, not prior skills or requisites.

    So there will be no sacrosanct, no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it, and we’re starting to see that a little bit already.

    Mr. Jekielek: For example, in Portland, the Antifa protests have turned into a whole lawless sector in the middle of Portland, presumably. So how is it that this just wasn’t dealt with for such a long time?

    Mr. Hanson: Well, you remember the mayor, as I recall, of Portland said it was going to be a summer of love, I think. We had all of these mayors—I get them confused—the Seattle mayor, the Portland mayor, and the Minneapolis mayor.

    Basically, if I could conflate them, they said that brick and mortar didn’t matter. If you burn down a precinct or a federal courthouse, it didn’t matter because these were symbols of authority that was unearned or ill-gotten, and that this natural exuberance would play itself out if we appeased it.

    In other words, the laws of human nature no longer apply, that somebody will do something until there’s a deterrent to stop them. What stops them? What ultimately stops them? Society reaches a critical tipping point when people—the majority of the people, whether they’re vigilantes in San Francisco in 1850, or whether they’re the community of Salem, Massachusetts, when they’re starting to burn witches on charges of witchcraft—at some point, somebody says, “The society can no longer exist if this continues.”

    What would be some of the things I’m talking about? If you have areas in Portland, or Seattle, or Minneapolis where the downtown is barricaded, where people have died there, where it’s filthy, then that’s something that people are going to be worried about.

    If you go to Venice Beach on the way to Santa Monica, and you see people living like they’re out of the 8th century—feces, poor people, violence, tribalism.

    Or if you’re in San Francisco, and you see a video of a person who rides his bike into a Walgreens and then in front of the security guard, fills up a trash bag with things, steals them unapologetically, is let go because he feels that it’s less than $1,000, so the lunatic district attorney will not charge him.

    Well, that’s a breakdown in the order of society. We’re not talking about elite squabbles on who gets into Princeton and who doesn’t. We’re talking about getting up in the morning and being able to survive one more day.

    When that is questioned—and we’re getting close in the major cities—then you’re going to have a gut check time. People are either going to say, “You know what? It’s lost. I’m heading out toward the rural areas. I’m going to find a community in Utah, or Nevada, or something, or I’m going to stay and fight.”

    I don’t have an answer because, as an American, I think this is a collective madness that happened with George Floyd, the pandemic, the scares of the coronavirus, the lockdown, the quarantine, the self-induced recession, the George Floyd protests, the election year, the weird early voting mail-in ballots—all of those were forced multipliers of the madness.

    Locked in, people were watching TV or computers and not interacting. I think that’s collective madness. I have to hope it’ll wane now, but maybe the virus is so deeply embedded now, it can’t be exiled.



  6. Life insurance was the biggest winner in World War 1:

    **Life Insurance in the United States through World War I** (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/life-insurance-in-the-united-states-through-world-war-i/)
    **Sharon Ann Murphy**
    The first American life insurance enterprises can be traced back to the late colonial period. The Presbyterian Synods in Philadelphia and New York set up the Corporation for Relief of Poor and Distressed Widows and Children of Presbyterian Ministers in 1759; the Episcopalian ministers organized a similar fund in 1769. In the half century from 1787 to 1837, twenty-six companies offering life insurance to the general public opened their doors, but they rarely survived more than a couple of years and sold few policies [Figures 1 and 2]. The only early companies to experience much success in this line of business were the Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities (chartered 1812), the Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Company (1818), the Baltimore Life Insurance Company (1830), the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company (1830), and the Girard Life Insurance, Annuity and Trust Company of Pennsylvania (1836). [See Table 1 (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/life-insurance-in-the-united-states-through-world-war-i/#_edn1).]

    Despite this tentative start, the life insurance industry did make some significant strides beginning in the 1830s [Figure 2]. Life insurance in force (the total death benefit payable on all existing policies) grew steadily from about $600,000 in 1830 to just under $5 million a decade later, with New York Life and Trust policies accounting for more than half of this latter amount. Over the next five years insurance in force almost tripled to $14.5 million before surging by 1850 to just under $100 million of life insurance spread among 48 companies. The top three companies – the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (1842), the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of New Jersey (1845), and the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company (1846) – accounted for more than half of this amount. The sudden success of life insurance during the 1840s can be attributed to two main developments – changes in legislation impacting life insurance and a shift in the corporate structure of companies towards mutualization.

    Life Insurance in the United States through World War I (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/life-insurance-in-the-united-states-through-world-war-i/)
    Dr David Martin – The Illusion of Knowledge (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dr-david-martin-the-illusion-of-knowledge/)


  7. **Foreign Media Skewer Joe Biden As ‘Barely Cogent,’ ‘Bizarre’**

    While the U.S. media frequently look the other way at President Joe Biden’s verbal and intellectual foibles, foreign media have questioned the president’s mental acuity. Australian reporters have lamented that “the leader of the free world” is “struggling,” “barely cogent,” and a “human corpse” who has sunken deep into “cognitive decline.”
    Those quotations come from Sky News Australia (https://www.skynews.com.au/), the center-right cable news network launched in 1996 by NewsCorp Australia. Its collection of hosts and journalists have told their growing audience (https://www.mediaweek.com.au/sky-news-reports-record-2020-audience-growth-all-hours-all-days/) what many in the U.S. media have refused to say: Joe Biden’s declining intellectual capabilities threaten all Western democracies.
    Foreign Media Skewer Joe Biden As ‘Barely Cogent,’ ‘Bizarre’



  8. **NPR Trashes Declaration Of Independence On Fourth Of July, Adds ‘Editor’s Note’ To Warn Of ‘Racist Slur’**
    National Public Radio (NPR) denounced the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth of July because of terms it deemed offensive.
    “245 years ago today, leaders representing 13 British colonies signed a document to declare independence,” NPR tweeted, linking to an article about its annual reading of the founding document. “It says ‘that all men are created equal’ — but women, enslaved people, Indigenous people and many others were not held as equal at the time.”
    “The document also includes a racist slur against Indigenous Americans. Author David Treuer, who is Ojibwe, says there is a lot of diversity of opinion and thought among Native Americans — a community of more than 5 million people — about the document’s words,” NPR continued, adding a quote from Treuer: “We remain committed to forcing this country to live up to its own stated ideals.”
    Trueur, NPR explained, focuses “on the the role of Indigenous Americans and the push for equality and equity.”
    “In this thread of the Declaration of Independence, you can see a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies. It also laid the foundation for this country’s collective aspirations — the hopes for what America could be,” NPR went on.
    NPR continued to tweet the entire text of the Declaration, but felt the need to insert an editor’s note to warn readers that the Founding Fathers used a “racist slur” when they accused King George III of endeavoring “to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
    The Declaration of Independence and the nation’s other founding documents were recently found to demonstrate “structural racism,” according to a task force on racism at the National Archives, where the original documents are housed in Washington, D.C.
    As The Daily Wire reported (https://www.dailywire.com/news/national-archives-task-force-says-americas-founding-documents-show-systemic-racism-suggests-trigger-warnings-dance-performances):
    >*In an exclusive report out Sunday, **Fox News noted that a “little noticed* (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-archives-rotunda-structural-racism)*” report from a National Archives task force on racism suggested the building, where America’s founding documents are displayed, was an example of “structural racism” and suggested major changes to how the Constitution and other notable records are presented in order to provide “context.”*
    >*The group also reportedly suggested that the National Archive’s portrayal of individual founding fathers was too positive.*
    >*The group, Fox News said Sunday, “claimed in a little-noticed report to the U.S.’s top librarian that the Archives’ own Rotunda – which houses the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights – is an example of ‘structural racism’ and that the Founding Fathers and other White, historically impactful Americans are portrayed too positively.”*
    >*The task force, which completed its work in April, noted that “structural racism” included “legacy descriptions that use racial slurs and harmful language to describe BIPOC communities,” like racial slurs but also terms like “elderly,” “handicapped” and “illegal alien.”*
    >*The National Archives rotunda fell under serious scrutiny because its frescoes and displays laud the achievements of “wealthy White men in the nation’s founding while marginalizing BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and other People of Color], women, and other communities.”*
    >*As for the documents and displays, the committee suggested “trigger warnings” for individuals who might suffer “physiological and psychological symptoms” as a result of coming into contact with the information and artwork in the rotunda.*
    NPR Trashes Declaration Of Independence On Fourth Of July, Adds ‘Editor’s Note’ To Warn Of ‘Racist Slur’ (https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-trashes-declaration-of-independence-on-fourth-of-july-adds-editors-note-to-warn-of-racist-slur)


  9. I knew it was going to happen, and I had a feeling it would be today July 4th Independence Day.
    I have been banned from commenting and editing on Quora.
    That is one of the reasons I started this blog. I hd the premonition of Quora banning me….and here it is.


  10. Who is John Sullivan, accused provocateur charged in Capitol riot?The self-styled civil rights activist charged in the US Capitol riots is a former Olympic speed skater wannabe — and alleged conman accused of trying to sabotage left-wing movements under the name “Activist John.” The checkered past of John Sullivan — the Utah man who claimed he embedded himself among the pro-Trumpers to record the storming of the Capitol last week — has many questioning the black, left-wing activist’s true motive.
    The 26-year-old competed in the 2018 Olympic trials and appeared in a 2016 commercial for Uber that’s since been made private. At one point, his Twitter page was filled with posts about fulfilling his skating dreams.But somewhere along the way, Sullivan shifted his sights to activism.He founded Insurgence USA, a protest group for “racial justice and police reform,” and began referring to himself as “Activist John” — filling his Twitter feeds with anti-President Trump rhetoric and posts supporting Black Lives Matter, as well as about his participation in recent protests.He documented his day infiltrating the Jan. 6 MAGA riot on his account, @realjaydenx, posting snippets of the footage he shot on his phone of the chaos inside the Capitol building — and the fatal shooting of QAnon supporter Ashli Babbitt.Sullivan also retweeted the numerous media stories that picked up his account of what happened that day, including Rolling Stone, which interviewed him for a story that published a day before his arrest


    Nancy Pelosi’s Jan. 6 commission is a partisan ploy

    The House voted Wednesday to approve Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. But by prejudging its conclusions and insisting on picking the majority of members, Pelosi has made the only inquiry that Americans could trust — a truly bipartisan one — impossible.Ten House Republicans voted to impeach President Donald Trump over what they said was his role in his supporters’ attack on the Capitol, but just two of them voted to OK Pelosi’s commission. That indicates it was created in bad faith.A bipartisan agreement on an investigation passed the House last month but failed in the Senate. It would’ve given both parties subpoena power and let each pick five members with expertise in national security and law enforcement to examine security shortcomings that led to the Capitol debacle. Under Wednesday’s resolution,

    Pelosi gets to appoint eight of the committee’s 13 members; the other five “shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader” — in other words, Pelosi decides those, too.The committee is to investigate “the facts, circumstances and causes” of the attack, as well as “influencing factors that fomented” it.

    But Pelosi has already decided what those are. “On that day, our temple of democracy was attacked by insurrectionists,” she said in announcing her plan. “The white supremacy, the anti-Semitism, the Islamophobia, all the rest of it” was “so evident” in the “insurrection incited by the president of the United States.”Pelosi picked a

    Republican (Liz Cheney of Wyoming) as one of her eight appointees, but other GOP members who voted for impeachment blasted Pelosi’s partisan ploy.Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) noted the speaker holds some responsibility for the Capitol’s protection. “Both sides have things that need to be looked at and revealed,” she said. “And the credibility of it is just going to be shot.”Rep. John Katko (R-NY), who also voted to impeach and worked with a Democratic House Homeland Security Committee colleague on the bipartisan bill, said Pelosi’s version means “a turbo-charged partisan exercise, not an honest fact-finding body that the American people and Capitol Police deserve.”
    Another impeacher, Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), warned the committee “will end up being a partisan shouting match that accomplishes next to nothing and only serves to further divide us.”But that’s exactly what Nancy Pelosi wants — a chance to pounce and preen while claiming Republicans instigated an insurrection. Indeed, her other seven picks were dominated by high-profile voices in her two impeachments of Trump: Reps. Adam Schiff, Zoe Lofgren and Jamie Raskin, plus Bennie Thompson, who sued Trump over his “gleeful support of violent white supremacists.”The speaker thinks keeping Trump in the news will boost Democrats in next year’s elections. But it won’t get to the bottom of the ugly events of Jan. 6.



Leave a Reply to prophet2020 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: