Wednesday, March 24, 2021

More Sedition Hoax, White Supremacy, Christian Terrorism

A hat tip to commenter Dutchmn007 for pointing out a very nice piece at The Burning Platform:


The point of the piece is twofold, and develops the ideas that I tried to present yesterday (The Sedition Hoax):

1. American public life, ruled by a prog class that controls most of the means of societal communication, has been characterized in the 21st century by serial hoaxes.

2. The political class, while deeply involved in perpetrating these hoaxes, is to a significant extent controlled by financial interests--including, of course in the "tech" sector (which now embraces much of public communication as we've come to know it in the digital age).

The author provides the evidence in considerable detail, involving more hoaxes--incontestable hoaxes, involving the dissemination by news and social media of undoubted false narratives--than I got into. The point of these hoaxes has all been to present false narratives of reality in America. Those narratives can be boiled down into a simple binary: America is engaged in a struggle between progressive forces of science and enlightened humanism against the forces of racist white supremacy and anti-science obscurantism. There are numerous sub-memes, but that's good enough for government work--and, indeed, that appears to be the narrative that informs the activities of our federal bureaucracy, including those agencies that control the tools of coercion, such as the FBI.

The correct stance for conservatives who wish to understand what's going on is captured in a quote from the writing of a liberal reporter, Glenn Greenwald:

“If you think the real power centers in the US are the Proud Boys, 4Chan & Boogaloos rather than the CIA, FBI, NSA, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and spend most of your time battling the former while serving the latter as stenographers, your journalism is definitionally shit.” – Glenn Greenwald

Now, obviously Greenwald is addressing the fact that corporate jouralism, as privileged by the SCOTUS line of decisions stemming from NYT v. Sullivan, amounts to scribbling down what the real masters of American tell them to scribble. At the same time, lets be clear about Conservativism Inc.: for most of the 21st century conservatives have generally lionized the Deep State (think, Tom Clancy novels, etc.) and the Tech Giants as embodying the best in America. While progs of the everyday variety remain Benighted for the most part (excepting a few like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald), four years of Trump and the hysterical prog response has led to what appears to be a Great Awakening among conservatives--the scales have fallen from the eyes of many. Evidence for this can be found in the tough sledding that Fox News has faced, and the immediate pushback against Mitch McConnell and other establishment GOP figures to restore their vision of "normality."

Here are excerpts of the Big Picture from the Burning Platform piece linked above (read it all--you won't regret it):

George Soros and his Open Society organization is intent on destroying all societal norms and community standards which have bound us together for generations. His desire is to destroy the family unit and replace it with the state. He openly funds anything and anyone who will further this agenda. ... Soros has spent tens of millions to get sociopath District Attorneys elected ..., whose sole purpose is to encourage crime, ..., and allow havoc and chaos to engulf their cities. Mission accomplished, as murder rates have skyrocketed in every Democrat run urban paradise in America – and the killing is not being committed by white supremacists. Soros is tearing down our society so it can be built back in his dystopian communist vision of the future.


The “armed insurrection” by “white supremacists” false narrative has been exploited ... to turn D.C. into an armed fortress with national guard members pretending to protect the Capital from imminent attack by the Trump militia armies. The FBI does their part by fear mongering about non-existent right wing domestic terrorists, while Democrat run cities continue to be terrorized and burned by real ANTIFA and BLM terrorists, with Federal buildings under armed attack and set on fire. ... They know their far-left agenda will ultimately result in chaos and revolution. They want to extinguish our exiting civilization, so they can “build back better” as a globalist utopia where the few, like Gates, Soros and Schwab, rule over the many, and you will own nothing and be happy – or else.

On the other hand, there is a bit of good news--and for this first bit a hat tip to commenter AmericanCardigan.

Politico is reporting that the outrageous attempt by DC US Attorney to run the Sedition Hoax through the national media, as we recounted yesterday, is getting pushback from, of all source, an Obama judge. We noted this earlier--that the judges have been reading the FBI affidavits intended to support the indefinite detention of Oath Keepers while the government attempts to build a conspiracy case. While the judicial pushback hasn't been uniform, it is happening, because the judges have been noticing that the evidence presented doesn't actually add up to sedition, and is often based on tenuous links to the actual January 6 Event--cell tower pings that only locate individuals in very broad proximity to the Event. Beyond that is the whole question of the First Amendment:

Sherwin’s comments to CBS echoed similar ones he leveled in January just as the Capitol investigation was getting underway, when he foreshadowed graver charges to come. But no seditious conspiracy charges have been filed yet, even as Sherwin has relinquished his post and headed back to the U.S. attorney’s office in southern Florida.

Judges have so far balked at some of the evidence presented against the Oath Keepers, noting that prosecutors had yet to show evidence that the group’s members intended to breach the Capitol to disrupt the constitutionally mandated counting of Electoral College votes.

It bears repeating from yesterday. This is what the Zhou Baiden regime, through its DoJ, needs to prove:

..., a criminal case brought against Donald Trump based on “incitement” of an imminent unlawful act is bound to fail according to the time-honored Brandenburg test. The test is two-fold:

  1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
  2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

The only clear directive that Donald Trump gave at his January 6th speech to protest was contingent that the attendees do so “peacefully and patriotically.”

The speech that Donald Trump gave hinged on commoplace political rhetoric that he had given at dozens of spirited, but completely peaceful rallies. Indeed, the Trump legal defense team did an apt job exposing the Democrats’ own lack of standards about whether invoking the term “fight” was tantamount to a call to arms.

So, in this context, Judge Amit Mehta had some tough words for DoJ yesterday:

A federal judge lambasted the Justice Department on Tuesday, warning that top officials’ comments in recent media interviews threatened to taint the prosecution of some of the most notorious participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

Mehta warned that official comments "threatened to taint the prosecution"? Well, that's Politco. Mehta actually stated that the actions by DoJ threatened the right of the defendants to a fair trial before a presumptively impartial jury. 

“These defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not one that is conducted in the media,” Mehta said as he opened the conference, which included senior supervisors in the U.S. Attorney’s office. "They are also entitled to defend against charges that are actually brought against them, not speculation about what might or might not be coming. ... I will not tolerate continued publicity in the media.”

Mehta said he would consider a gag order if he sees additional public comments, and he noted that his court has rules limiting public comments by lawyers that can impact a case.

“These kinds of statements in the media have the potential of affecting the jury pool … I intend to enforce that rule vigorously,” said Mehta, an appointee of President Barack Obama. “The government, quite frankly, should know better.”

The government should know better? Mehta knows that the government does know better. What his angry reaction suggests is that he also knows they're trying to treat him as a prop at a show trial.

The comments from Mehta were out of character for the typically mild-mannered judge, who rarely uses his courtroom for the type of dressing down he delivered Tuesday, and it showed showed how seriously he took the DOJ transgressions.

Of course, as always in our age of hoaxes, this is all theater. So, the real question remains: How far will the American people allow this to go? Will judges rein this hoax in? Recall that this is all basically subsumed under the overall White Supremacy Hoax. The Atlanta killings, which Dems thought they could work to preemptively keep Asians alienated GOP, is not playing out that well--Asians are not that easily duped, beyond "community activists."

Now, the Boulder killings may end up further discrediting the overall White Supremacy narrative, as illustrated by a remarkably fine Newsweek article:

Twitter Says Calling Boulder Shooter a 'White Christian Terrorist' Is OK

The Left jumped to vilify White Males, only to have the whole thing blow up in their faces. Twitter has tried to cover for the Left, of course, but that could cause further damage to the whole image of social media narratives that the Left tries to propagate:

A tweet describing Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the suspected gunman in Monday's Colorado supermarket shooting, as a "white Christian terrorist" does not violate the social network's misinformation policies, Twitter told Newsweek.

Many Twitter users assumed the shooter was white before his name was released by police in Boulder, Colorado. Several pointed to the massacre as another example of racial injustice and white supremacy in the United States, coming a few days after a white man killed six Asian women in an Atlanta shooting spree.

Follow the link for more commentary and examples of deranged Leftist ranting (if that's your thing). One of the tweeters, however, came from a source who has been getting attention because of her connection to the Kama Sutra office of the Zhou Baiden regime:

On Monday, Meena Harris, the niece of Vice President Kamala Harris, published a now-deleted tweet blaming white men for the Boulder, Colorado shooting. It had over 6,500 retweets and 35,700 likes before she deleted it.

"The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago. Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country," Harris wrote in the tweet.

Soon after deleting her tweet, Harris wrote on Twitter, "I deleted a previous tweet about the suspect in the Boulder shooting. I made an assumption based on his being taken into custody alive and the fact that the majority of mass shootings in the U.S. are carried out by white men."

White shooters have accounted for 66 of 121 mass shootings that have occurred from 1982 to 2021, according to the German statistical data firm Statista.

That is a very slim majority. Harris wisely avoids going into per capita considerations. The bigger issue, however, is that Alissa appears to have specifically targeted white Americans. What effect will the unhinged rush to judgment against White Men have on Election 2022? Will GOPers have the gumption to use these unhinged narratives to push back against Leftist hatred, and play to the American sense of fair play?

In that regard, we end on a downer. Joy Pullman totally deconstructs Kristi Noem at The Federalist today--in scathing terms:

Kristi Noem Running The Mike Pence Play To Help Leftists Control The Culture

Conservatives need better than that.


  1. Isn't there a mass shooting every weekend in Chicago?

    So if I used twitter, I can tweet about the Muslim immigrant who killed 10 and not get banned?

  2. What I'm continually stunned by is the fact that the entire news narrative seems to be manipulated by tptb. I guess it was like that all along, but now it seems so much more overt than in the past. It's almost as if we are living in some woke version of the woke Matrix and fed whatever load of bs to meet/drive their agenda(s).

    For example, with regards to Mr AAAA (the Colorado shooter), there is a report that Facebook deleted the profile which is just beyond the pale. On it's face it looks like just another naked attempt to sway opinions to their collective narrative that he's another deranged Trump supporter, etc.? Or perhaps it's something else? Maybe, it's wanting to show us that we are too all stupid not to see through the subterfuge? "We did it because we can and there's nothing you can do to us!".

    It seems lately, that there is little or nothing truthful being reported lately and as they say the beatings will continue until morale improves. For example, what's going on in the EU with regards to protests against the lockdowns, or the one I saw from someone yesterday regarding them posting their objection to the latest Vax narrative.

    He posted "Vaccines=Freedom?" with a reference to the the German phrase "Arbeit macht frei" which got him banned. Maybe the association is a bit harsh, but there must be some truth in his unapproved narrative?

    That said, I would like to say thanks for your blog that helps one (at least me) wade through the fog of "truth" to understand what is really happening sans socialist filtering.

    1. Thanks. Yes, I saw someone else asking the same question: Who deleted the profile?

    2. Mueller's Goons threatened PapaD with Obstruction for deleting his Facebook profile; why aren't the people at Facebook facing the same potential criminal Obstruction charge as PapaD?

    3. The fact that Facebook removed the profile from public viewing doesn't mean that they obliterated it. They presumably have already made the contents available to LE. The removal from public access only means that someone doesn't want the public to see it--for reasons that have not been revealed.

  3. What's tweaking me about Colorado is what will become of the data federally speaking. Public opinion blowing up is one half, the other is the corrupted federal crime databases that WILL record this as another instance white male extremist killings.

    Every 9/11 and pulse shooting victim is on record in several databases as being victim of a "white" killer / mass killing by "white" etc.

    The other issue I've seen much about is the recording of NULL values where other races are concerned.

    It's why you can never get the data to reconcile between crime rates in races.

    Those are your datasets that keep showing up in congressional testimony where white extremists are concerned.

    1. I believe arab descent has always been classified as "white" (an absurd designation as well), but its a symptom of the dire conditions we find ourselves in, even with regard to trying to have rational discussion.

      Any attempt to dive into data analysis, which itself has been intentionally corrupted, is met with either:
      ---loss of attention in the minutiae from the devolving attention span of emotion-driven, ignorant citizens; OR
      ---I guess you don't believe "the science" demagoguery

      The descent is happening fast, these days.

  4. Where you write "he also knows their trying to treat him as a prop", I'll bet you mean "he also knows *they're* trying...."

  5. "Shaking the Jar" is quite a powerful piece.

    I don't understand why Trump wouldn't outline those ideas in public speeches. Surely he was aware of them.

    I only ever heard him speak in generalities, like "drain the swamp".

    If he had been more explicit, and detailed, surely more people, even some of the "zombies" mentioned in the piece, would have woken up.

    Perhaps not going so far as to name names, but I think he could have said enough so people would know who and what he was talking about.

    Was he afraid of going too far? It's not as if he had many supporters in the establishment anyway. He could easily have pulled a Samson (says I from my couch), or would that have been a bridge too far?.


    1. I am not so sure about getting better attention by being more explicit. I think a very broad set of people intuitively understood the issue from the slogan (and thus why he was broadly elected, coup notwithstanding).

      But at the risk of sounding "conspiratorial" like as if anything is a stretch these days.... I think he went about as far as he could go without facing the "accidents" and assassinations.

      I just do not put that past the leviathan anymore. he was the greatest threat to their supremacy they ever faced, and they would not have batted an eye if they thought the demonization and media complicity in their propaganda wasn't going to work.

  6. I guess the key factor to the Oath Keepers and others is whether they did anything “by force.”

    Can it be proven they broke windows or, “by force,” took possession of or occupied the Capitol? Can it be proven that they, “by force,” attempted to delay, hinder, or prevent the execution of the law.

    If so, it’s a slam dunk case, but apparently it’s not

    This is where Obama was slick. The force he applied to Trump was force, just not physical. It’s the force of legality of made up charges, coercion, intimidation, threats of jail to person and family.

    That is as much as force as is physical force. Heck, there was a very real threat of physical force with Stone. The threat of physical violence is force.

    And, I know the force that Obama used is as much a legal definition of force as the definition of physical force.

    1. What I think they're technically trying to do is to prove that they conspired to use force. As you say, not such an easy thing, and the judges are skeptical, even if not terribly sympathetic to the Oath Keepers.

      While Obama's crew didn't use force, they did misuse legal authority--which is obstruction. However, hard to prove the intent as opposed to being mistaken. I have no doubt as to the intent, but proof in a DC court is a very different thing.

    2. Who cares Tx D, if they can prove anything? They will stack the federal charges to force a plea deal and the prosecutors keep their 99.8% conviction rate intact. The prosecution is the punishment.

    3. @Anon, eyes are open to that tactic now. We'll see if they can really scare people into it. I give it 50/50 odds.

      @TX, Mark, could it be that judges are ready to stay being judges again now that Trump is gone? Do they think they get to just turn justice off and on like that?

  7. OT - Pres Biden assigning Kamala to be the head of all border related issues is a preemptive bid to ward off any and all border related questions during this afternoon press conference, Biden will just answer that we need to wait to find out what she will discover in her newly appointed gig. No need to jump the gun on this, lets wait for her report on the border and then if you still have any questions ask her. Problem solved. In the mean time, it's all Trump's fault anyways, everyone knows that!

  8. Aaaand from sundance... prosecutors walking back statements?

    1. Thanks very much--I'll try to address that a bit later. Sundance says "political narrative" and I say "theater"--we mean the same thing. It's not about convictions--although in DC anything is possible for libs--but about using this against conservatives for Election 2022.

  9. I've read the Shaking the Jar articles (there are in fact two) now and agree with Frank; they are quite powerful. Thanks Dutchmn007 and Mark for calling them to our attention.

    What I like most about them is the litany of what has gone wrong. I don't see how anybody (including most rank and file Democrat ants) can disagree with the facts on the ground. There is enormous societal discontent on both sides and it is creating more chaos. The deficits and amount of federal debt created (by both parties) has to worry anybody familiar with financial history. And how to deal with the covid has certainly pushed Americans further apart. So, yes, the ants are certainly upset and they are fighting among themselves. And there are very few constructive solutions, if any, in sight.

    So who is shaking the jar? The author says:

    "None of this is an accident. It is not occurring naturally. This is the result of a designed blueprint to control and rule the world by a relatively small cadre of billionaire oligarch globalists, Big Tech despots, bought off politicians, the banking cabal fronted by their puppets at the Federal Reserve, surveillance state operatives, military industrial complex parasites, captured corporate media, mega-corporations, and mid-level government apparatchiks sucking on the teat of the Deep State".

    But is the plan really a plan to 'control and rule the world?' Or is it not the logical result of greed and crony capitalism simply run amok? The common denominator among all of the listed perps is either enormous wealth or payments from (and security derived from) those having enormous wealth.

    Look at the list again. The list starts with billionaire oligarchs and then continues through a series of frontmen, operatives, puppets, aparatchiks, parasites, teat-suckers and flaks, all relying one way or another (for their success if not their very survival) on the success of the elite, globalist enterprise.

    [As an aside, I'm tempted to mention the perfidy of even a conservative Kristi Noem who it now appears is bought and paid for by Amazon and the NCAA...who are owned by whom? No one in power today is exempt.]

    I'm sure I have said nothing original or even very noteworthy here so far. Its all been said before. My point is that this is not ideological as many suggest. How could it be? Most of the debate is lies and hoaxes...and utter absurdities. Does anybody here believe that the perps listed above are ideological Marxists or Communists willing to trade places with the poultry factory workers in Iowa?

    No, it looks to me like this is all about money and greed. The power part is simply to hold on to the money.

    I'm reminded of the epigraph attributed to Balzac: "Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” There are 'fortunes' at stake here and their holders will apparently do whatever is necessary to hold on to them.

    We would do well to remember this.

    1. Well, apparently Trump is the Balzac outlier because it would have been used against him by now.

      While I agree there is no SPECTRE, we do have an opportunistic Blofeld and Goldfinger or two or three.

    2. I've read somewhere that the history of the world is really just the history of a few great men and their families, fighting for power and money.


    3. @TexasDude

      Yes, Trump is an outlier. That's part of the miracle of Trump.


      Don't you think power and money is likely a more persuasive motivator than ideology?

    4. @tx dude, Frank and Cassandar...

      I agree with all but there is one thing that concerns me about Trump right now. Revenge is by far a more persuasive motivator than power, money or ideology combined.

      That's got me concerned about some of the things we're seeing (and even more so) not seeing from him.

      This party within a party game, I've seen the Repubs vs the Repubs movie before.

      Not seeing... I honestly expected far more support coming from him and others regarding the 400+ arrests made so far. This theater / sideshow / psyops is doing serious damage to not only the individuals but the conservative mindset as a whole.

      Terrorizing people brings out very odd reactions, one is fear, the other is radicalization. Both are incredibly dangerous!!!

    5. And, on cue, ...

      But, we do have this from Jan 7 ...

      He didn’t condone the violence and he didn’t call for violence.

    6. "Don't you think power and money is likely a more persuasive motivator than ideology? "

      Yes, I would agree - sex, power and money - the main drivers of world affairs.

      Ideology is only used to gain power.


    7. @Frank

      "Ideology is only used to gain power."

      And it can be any old long as it works.

    8. @devilman

      "Revenge is by far a more persuasive motivator than power, money or ideology combined."

      But, devilman, hasn't it also been said that revenge is a dish best served cold?


  10. Mark and other commenters – been pondering, triggered by this article noting that Wis passed a law banning mandatory vaccinations ( ) what happens when this happens in states where it’s not banned? I have promised myself not to let any of my family get anywhere near this vaccine – what happens to the large crowd of Americans who are left with a choice, lose their jobs or see their kids kicked out of school for not taking the vaccine? Seen a stat pegged at 1 in 4 plan to refuse to get it; btw, is this terminology (we refuse…?) on purpose (rhetorical), why not just phrased like a choice of mayo on my burger, I choose not to have it…). It seems inevitable this day is coming.

    1. Hmmmm, we're all refuseniks now? It seems to me this is ripe for a lawsuit.

  11. not following - lawsuit how, and isn't this a poor remedy, given that the relief is insufficient in time and practicality where a student is precluded from attending school while the litigation occurs; isn't this a form of the left having changed the rules of engagement and we are acquiescing, engaging on their terms? How do we engage per the perennial principles you laid out - seems they now have the institutions to execute their agenda and then the relief when their agenda's rules are broken (think of the young man who opined boys are boys, and the school then enforced the penalty for that infraction); so for us, unless we find institutions to collect and advocate our positions, we have no chance. On this vaccine issue, we read where Rutgers - - is now mandating the vaccine; and yet a dr friend said to me last night a vaccine under emergency authorization cannot be mandated 'so no need to worry..'. So is Rutgers unaware or don't care? point being, all roads to lead back to the same place, unless all of us commenters locked in this echo chamber with Mark around the water cooler band together in a real way within an institution that gives us power to fight (or at least a 'fighting chance'), leverage (of money, time and effort/brain power), cover (from persecution, cancelling), advocacy, we're just wasting time. If a lawsuit against the vaccine mandate is the best we have, we have surrendered to their narrative.

    1. Yes, I read about Rutgers. It's the first place of its sort in the first state. There is the possibility of injunctive relief before trial, etc. There is also the possibility of boycotts--there are alternatives still. We need our own institutions, but we also need to fight with the tools at hand that remain, rather than simply give up. Lawsuits are not surrender and sometimes succeed, buying time.

    2. am I wrong to assume the institution naturally meant for us is the church, and that now too it seems has fallen to the left agenda; the priests in the RCC here in US who openly resist can be counted on 1 hand. Maybe that's part of the awakening, we no longer need to be tied to the parish in our own 'convenient' back yard, are we to join and support the priests who have the wisdom and courage to resist, and 'speak the truth'?