5 ms·

Combined with the Durham reports findings this is enough for some to say the FBI should simply cease to exist. The safety and justice they provide does not stac

by cies 3y ago

Combined with the Durham reports findings this is enough for some to say the FBI should simply cease to exist. The safety and justice they provide does not stack up to the lies, injustice, democracy subversion, illegal surveillance that comes along with it. It's an inherent problem with "dark budgets" though.

localplume 3y ago
[dead]
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Same issue with the German Verfassungsschutz ("Agency for the protection of the Constitution"). Over time these kind of agencies become political weapons, and thus a danger to the very thing they were created to protect - the constitution. When Nixon tried to stop it in his time, the intelligence services set him up, creating the Watergate scandal [0]. We are now learning from whistleblowers there were hundreds (!) of agents from many different agencies present at the Jan 6 "insurrection", it was probably the same playbook [1]. The FBI is even using this as an excuse and refuses to release hundreds of hours video, claiming it would expose too many agents [2]. Loosely connected to this is the "Russia Collusion" hoax, where they FBI willingly interfered in elections to smear the opposition with the full knowledge that the accusations were baseless, uncovered in the the Durham report. [3] Not long ago I would have laughed those stories off as nut job conspiracy theories, but the pattern becomes hard to ignore. [0] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09JHKYQP9/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09JHKYQP9/ [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085527/3-FBi-whistleblowers-testify-abuses-power-agency-public-Weaponization-hearing.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085527/3-FBi-whis... [2] https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1659557297197133825 https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1659557297197133825 [3] https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-durham-report-and-our-carousel https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-durham-report-and-...
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Wonder how many Stasi joined the ranks of the Verfassungsschutz
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I am just sceptical, that there ever was a time, when the "Verfassungsschutz" was actually different. It was founded and staffed with ex Gestapo personal after all and the main historical mission was anti bolschewistic - and (ex) nazis are plausible anti communists, so they were hired. There are difference in how the different branches operate, though (every federate state has also their own agency) and some seem to do good work, but others (thuringa) seem to be made up of Nazis themself, who rather support the neonazi organisations, they are supposed to be fighting against. Frankly, I don't see a strong argument why they should exist in the first place and why their work cannot be done by ordinary (professional) police. So yes, neonazis (and left wing extremists and islamists) operate in secrecy. But so do common criminals. Edit: And the actual dangerous nazi terrorism cell that operated for years was indeed caught not by the specialised secret agency Verfassungsschutz, but by ordinary police. (With strong hints, that they were protected by some parts of the Verfassungsschutz) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Undergrou...
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    Its not really a "both sides" issue - employees of the state naturally tend towards the left (except military and special forces), for obvious reasons. Over 90% of US state personnel vote Democrat. And since no administration can function effectively without this "deep state", this kinda invalidates democracy itself.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Could you enlighten me and list some of these "obvious reasons"? Also, since you say "naturally", I assume there are sources you might be able to point at?
      - christophilus 3y ago
        Not the OP, but let’s use a more libertarian definition of the right— that is, let’s say the Republicans actually believe “that government governs best that governs least.” If that was so, then it’s natural for folks employed by the government to vote to keep their own jobs. If one party thinks, we need fewer government employees, and one side thinks, we need more of them, you can see how incentives might line up. That said, Republicans talk about limited government, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen very little difference in the expansion of governmental powers regardless of which party is in control.
- cies 3y ago
  > nut job conspiracy theories Many conspiracies have turned out to be real. The Gulf of Tonkin incident (how the US tricked everyone in believing North Vietnam attacked them) being an obvious example. That puts the whole "conspiracy theory come from bad civilians" and "misinformation comes from bad civilians" narrative in a psy-op kind of day light. I see most problematic mis-info being peddled by govts, NGOs (WEF, NATO) and the(ir) MSM. The BS they crank out in the context of the Ukraine destabilization by the US+NATO is, quite literally, unbelievable.
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    I think that ultimately, both sides believe in conspiracy theories, they just don’t think of them that way. Leftists believe in the Russia Collusion one, right-wingers in the stolen election. The problem is that the ones perpetrated by the state are more severe because the consequences are often war, and only a small minority (usually rw) has any idea they took place. Ultimately, falsehoods and fabrications are how democracies launder war. Most people still believe Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, which is ridiculous if you know about the preceding blockade.
    - cies 3y ago
      Since Durham we know it is stolen. Also the irregularities in Oregon state voting are telling the story of a stolen election. "Leftists" do not exist in US political arena. Sanders was close but even he would not want to "socialize" (bring under control of the workers) US business. What is called "left" in the US is generally more right-wing than right-wing liberal parties in Europe. Probably you mean Democrats (that we know since the Durham report do not give a f*ck about democracy).
logicchains 3y ago
>Combined with the Durham reports findings this is enough for some to say the FBI should simply cease to exist. Not just the FBI. Remember when the head of the NSA lied to congress, and got away with it? The spy agencies have gone rogue, acting however they wish without consequence.
- cies 3y ago
  It's the dark budgets. And yes all spy agencies need them. But the main issue --to me-- is that the US govt works for big biz, not for its voters. Voting is basically a facade at this point. There is no democracy, we should stop repeating that it is and demand our schools stop repeating as well. We live in a somewhat-free dictatorship/plutocracy. Somewhat free means that you can use freedom of speech to criticize the govt a little bit, but not too much (or you get Assanged/Snowdenized).
mu53 3y ago
[flagged]
deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
I’m curious why you point to the Durham report as being a strike against the FBI. As far as I know, he has zero indictments against the FBI as a result. For lack of recommendations to prosecution, the rest seems opinion? At least the Mueller investigation resulted in 34 separate indictments. So I don’t understand the disconnect here. Seems overtly political.

by cies 3y ago

localplume 3y ago

[dead]

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

Same issue with the German Verfassungsschutz ("Agency for the protection of the Constitution"). Over time these kind of agencies become political weapons, and thus a danger to the very thing they were created to protect - the constitution. When Nixon tried to stop it in his time, the intelligence services set him up, creating the Watergate scandal [0]. We are now learning from whistleblowers there were hundreds (!) of agents from many different agencies present at the Jan 6 "insurrection", it was probably the same playbook [1]. The FBI is even using this as an excuse and refuses to release hundreds of hours video, claiming it would expose too many agents [2]. Loosely connected to this is the "Russia Collusion" hoax, where they FBI willingly interfered in elections to smear the opposition with the full knowledge that the accusations were baseless, uncovered in the the Durham report. [3] Not long ago I would have laughed those stories off as nut job conspiracy theories, but the pattern becomes hard to ignore. [0] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09JHKYQP9/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09JHKYQP9/ [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085527/3-FBi-whistleblowers-testify-abuses-power-agency-public-Weaponization-hearing.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12085527/3-FBi-whis... [2] https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1659557297197133825 https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1659557297197133825 [3] https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-durham-report-and-our-carousel https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-durham-report-and-...

Eumenes 3y ago
Wonder how many Stasi joined the ranks of the Verfassungsschutz
hutzlibu 3y ago
I am just sceptical, that there ever was a time, when the "Verfassungsschutz" was actually different. It was founded and staffed with ex Gestapo personal after all and the main historical mission was anti bolschewistic - and (ex) nazis are plausible anti communists, so they were hired. There are difference in how the different branches operate, though (every federate state has also their own agency) and some seem to do good work, but others (thuringa) seem to be made up of Nazis themself, who rather support the neonazi organisations, they are supposed to be fighting against. Frankly, I don't see a strong argument why they should exist in the first place and why their work cannot be done by ordinary (professional) police. So yes, neonazis (and left wing extremists and islamists) operate in secrecy. But so do common criminals. Edit: And the actual dangerous nazi terrorism cell that operated for years was indeed caught not by the specialised secret agency Verfassungsschutz, but by ordinary police. (With strong hints, that they were protected by some parts of the Verfassungsschutz) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Undergrou...
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  Its not really a "both sides" issue - employees of the state naturally tend towards the left (except military and special forces), for obvious reasons. Over 90% of US state personnel vote Democrat. And since no administration can function effectively without this "deep state", this kinda invalidates democracy itself.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Could you enlighten me and list some of these "obvious reasons"? Also, since you say "naturally", I assume there are sources you might be able to point at?
    - christophilus 3y ago
      Not the OP, but let’s use a more libertarian definition of the right— that is, let’s say the Republicans actually believe “that government governs best that governs least.” If that was so, then it’s natural for folks employed by the government to vote to keep their own jobs. If one party thinks, we need fewer government employees, and one side thinks, we need more of them, you can see how incentives might line up. That said, Republicans talk about limited government, but in my lifetime, I’ve seen very little difference in the expansion of governmental powers regardless of which party is in control.
cies 3y ago
> nut job conspiracy theories Many conspiracies have turned out to be real. The Gulf of Tonkin incident (how the US tricked everyone in believing North Vietnam attacked them) being an obvious example. That puts the whole "conspiracy theory come from bad civilians" and "misinformation comes from bad civilians" narrative in a psy-op kind of day light. I see most problematic mis-info being peddled by govts, NGOs (WEF, NATO) and the(ir) MSM. The BS they crank out in the context of the Ukraine destabilization by the US+NATO is, quite literally, unbelievable.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  I think that ultimately, both sides believe in conspiracy theories, they just don’t think of them that way. Leftists believe in the Russia Collusion one, right-wingers in the stolen election. The problem is that the ones perpetrated by the state are more severe because the consequences are often war, and only a small minority (usually rw) has any idea they took place. Ultimately, falsehoods and fabrications are how democracies launder war. Most people still believe Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, which is ridiculous if you know about the preceding blockade.
  - cies 3y ago
    Since Durham we know it is stolen. Also the irregularities in Oregon state voting are telling the story of a stolen election. "Leftists" do not exist in US political arena. Sanders was close but even he would not want to "socialize" (bring under control of the workers) US business. What is called "left" in the US is generally more right-wing than right-wing liberal parties in Europe. Probably you mean Democrats (that we know since the Durham report do not give a f*ck about democracy).

logicchains 3y ago

>Combined with the Durham reports findings this is enough for some to say the FBI should simply cease to exist. Not just the FBI. Remember when the head of the NSA lied to congress, and got away with it? The spy agencies have gone rogue, acting however they wish without consequence.

cies 3y ago
It's the dark budgets. And yes all spy agencies need them. But the main issue --to me-- is that the US govt works for big biz, not for its voters. Voting is basically a facade at this point. There is no democracy, we should stop repeating that it is and demand our schools stop repeating as well. We live in a somewhat-free dictatorship/plutocracy. Somewhat free means that you can use freedom of speech to criticize the govt a little bit, but not too much (or you get Assanged/Snowdenized).

mu53 3y ago

[flagged]

deepsquirrelnet 3y ago

I’m curious why you point to the Durham report as being a strike against the FBI. As far as I know, he has zero indictments against the FBI as a result. For lack of recommendations to prosecution, the rest seems opinion? At least the Mueller investigation resulted in 34 separate indictments. So I don’t understand the disconnect here. Seems overtly political.