Medier og spiontjenester flyter over i hverandre

Høyresiden må bli klar over at mediene arbeider sømløst sammen med staten og e-tjenestene for å ta ut enkeltpersoner som Kanye West og Nick Fuentes. Deres virkelige mål er Trump og hans 65 millioner velgere og deres «slektninger», enten disse befinner seg i Brasil eller i Italia.

Myndigheter, Big Tech og Five Eyes kringkaster deres felles operative samarbeid. Men høyresiden er ikke i stand til å ta det inn over seg.

Fra 2021:

On July 26, Reuters reported that the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) would significantly expand its operations to “crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias.”

Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft, and Twitter formed GIFCT in 2017 as an independent intelligence apparatus. It will use data from Five Eyes, an international intelligence alliance of dozens of agencies from the CIA to MI6, to elevate the Proud Boys to the status of al-Qaeda.

“Anyone looking at the terrorism or extremism landscape has to appreciate that there are other parts . . . that are demanding attention right now,” said GIFCT’s Executive Director Nicholas Rasmussen in an interview with Reuters, pointing to supposed threats of far-right extremism.

Five Eyes er etterretningssamarbeidet mellom Canada, Storbritannia, USA, Australia og New Zealand. Disse vender nå sine våpen mot indre fiender. Spiontjenestene, som er finansiert av velgerne, går til krig mot sin egen befolkning. Det er skjellsettende i vestlig historie.

Organisasjoner som tidligere har jobbet for høyverdige saker, som antisemittisme, spenner seg selv for den ideologiske vogna og kompromitterer sitt arbeid. De krenker dessuten elementære borgerretttigheter ved å samarbeide med betalingstjenester som PayPal. En organisasjon som skulle bekjempe antisemittisme går over til selv å bli en forfølger. Det er utrolig.

Also, on July 26, the Anti-Defamation League announced a partnership with PayPal to assist the online payment system in refusing service to financial networks that, according to the ADL, “support extremism and hate” or endanger “at-risk communities.” As Jonathan Tobin noted in the New York Post, “the ADL isn’t saying how it will make its determinations. But given its ideological orientation, there’s little doubt that the ADL will target anyone who dissents from support for Black Lives Matter and other left-wing causes.” Tobin’s right to worry.

This kind of partnership would require PayPal not only to give the ADL access to user transaction history but would also open up this information for law enforcement agencies. One need not even read between the lines to see this; the quiet part is being said aloud. “The information collected through the initiatives will be shared with other firms in the financial industry, law enforcement and policymakers,” PayPal told Reuters.

Disse kreftene går etter personer som skiller seg ut og brennemerker dem. En av dem er Nick Fuentes.

According to our new public-private national security apparatus, what qualifies as extremism or terrorism? Anything that can be characterized as “antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry,” Reuters reports. In other words, every slur that the Left—which is, whether it will acknowledge it or not, the establishment faction—hurls at its enemies. Indeed, the ADL recently worked with Twitter to deplatform the controversial political commentator Nick Fuentes.

Det skjer en arbeidsdeling innen den nye sikkerhetsstaten. Organisasjoner som tidligere har jobbet, eller nominelt skal jobbe, for menneskerettigheter, går etter enkeltinvidier og brennemerker dem. Banker og andre tjenester følger opp med å utstøte dem. Hvis noen kan stemples om islamofob, transfob eller antisemitt, gjelder ikke vanlig borgerlig beskyttelse. Da er de fritt vilt.

Mediene ikke bare godtar det, de går i spissen for det. Det store tause flertallet forstår ikke helt dimensjonene på det som skjer.

The day after the ADL published an “extremist” profile of Fuentes, Twitter permanently suspended his account. Fuentes is a controversialist but, practically speaking, harmless. But that is the point. These initial shows of force always select individuals like Fuentes because they are difficult to defend in polite company, and in the era of guilt by association, any defense of them is automatically taken as an implicit endorsement of everything that person has said and done. People like Fuentes are never the real targets, however, just victims of a regime flexing its muscles before it undertakes the heavy lifting and expands its appetite to the broader population.