Submitted by Mike Miles, journalist, writer and book author
Foreign Affairs Magazine Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media
Is Foreign Affairs magazine advancing “domestic terrorism” because it could help remove alternative media, and even jail editors and writers or worse. The recent article is entitled “Should We Treat Domestic Terrorists the Way We Treat ISIS? What Works—and What Doesn't.” It begins as follows:
The mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night has again raised fears about terrorism. There’s much we don’t yet know. The Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed the attack, but the FBI claims that there is no international terrorism link. The attacker, Stephen Paddock, was 64 years old and white, fitting a stereotype of a right-wing terrorist more than a jihadist one. And he may just be a crazy nut. But regardless of Paddock’s particular pathology, the situation highlights how the United States treats similar forms of violence differently depending on the nature of the perpetrator.
Many commentators have already demanded that we make a case for domestic terrorism including such prominent Youtubers as Philip DeFranco. He runs a website of some six million and offers mildly libertarian commentary. But perhaps he doesn’t understand that he may eventually become a victim of what he wants to invoke. There are many such well-meaning people who quite possibly misunderstand what is happening
How about PropOrNot? This outfit lists around websites “friendly” to Russia and in total includes many of the major alternative websites in the country. Those who run the website say they believe these sites provide propaganda for Russia.
A recent reading of PropOrNot seems to reveal that the site may have reduced some of the finger-pointing. It says that it does not “censor.” However it continues to list websites nonetheless. The Washington Post drew information from PropOrNot long ago when it was trying to paint alternative websites as Russian sympathizers.
Interestingly, the recent shooting in Las Vegas didn’t make much sense to some people because neither the shooter nor people shot fit into known patterns of terrorism – or so we are told. But what if the real reason to shoot so many people was at least in part to create support for domestic terrorism?
It is surely “conspiratorial” to ask such a question and certainly it must seem far-fetched. On the other hand some commentators have pointed out that there may have been at least two shooters on two separate floors.
The main point here is that the determination to assault the alternative media seems to have taken a big step forward with this article in Foreign Affairs magazine. No new legislation may be needed, according to the article. The FBI simply needs to go after people who are supposedly questionable. Sooner or later this could include the alternative media.
Here’s a quote from the end of the article that back-peddles from some of its more Draconian observations about what the FBI could easily do once people supposedly began to make a fuss about “terrorism” on America’s shores:
… Legislation should factor in counterterrorism measures we don’t want as well as ones we do. … The language should be tightly worded and subject to regular legislative oversight—the definition of a foreign terrorist organization is broad, and any domestic legislation should focus heavily on the threat or use of violence and be regularly reviewed to ensure that changes in group behavior are reflected.
And another quote:
The right-wing threat in particular is comparable to that of jihadist violence at home, and similar resources should be allocated to addressing it. The FBI and DHS should create larger offices dedicated to domestic groups and otherwise develop their intelligence presence.
Will the FBI really be subject to “legislative oversight” and be “regularly reviewed.” The people suggesting this supposed advancement are, at the top, possibly some of the most powerful and wealthy people on the planet. This project may not be bound by constraints any more than the current investigation into Trump is being adequately constrained. And it may be happening sooner rather than later.
Of course maybe Congress has dropped legislative authority to create a well-funded group of reporters that will “expose” the alternative media in the US and perhaps abroad. On the other hand, the move to concentrate on domestic terrorism and then to heighten the battle against the alternative media seems like it could be advancing in earnest. It is certainly possible that the alternative media read by tens of millions is ready to repel the FBI and other forces that could be trying to remove it. But what if it is not?