After calling white supremacy the greatest lethal threat to the homeland, the Biden Administration is preparing a pathway so that Americans can report family or friends who appear “radicalized”. A closer look at the corrupt interplay between government and media show the danger of when a feedback loop becomes too prominent to recognize any error.
In a background press call by Senior Administration officials, on June 15th, on “the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” the speaking official said:
“We will work to improve public awareness of federal resources to address concerning or threatening behavior before violence occurs. And on that, I would just note that one of the things we’re talking about is the need to do something in this space, like the “See something” — “If you see something, say something” concept that has been promulgated previously by DHS. This involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence.”
Just before that the official once again noted a repeated sentiment of the administration, DOJ, and establishment media:
“An unclassified summary of that baseline study was released in March, and it found that domestic violent extremists, motivated by a range of ideologies, pose an elevated threat to our country in 2021, with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists — and specifically those who espouse the superiority of the white race — and anti-government militia violent extremists posing the most lethal threat.
Further, it found that violent extremists to promote the superiority of the white race have the most persistent transnational connections and may be in frequent contact with violent extremists abroad.”
The Biden Administration has recently come out saying that white supremacy is the most “lethal threat to the homeland today.”
“According to the intelligence community,” he says, “terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda, White Supremacists. That’s not me, that’s the Intelligence Community.”
When we think “radical” then, what do Americans think of? Many on the left think of white supremacy, most times to the point of attributing it as the sole cause to issues, like Anti-Asian hate crimes, regardless of the race that perpetuated it.
In an article published on Yahoo News, “White Supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US“, the author writes:
“White people are the main perpetrators of anti-Asian racism. But in February 2021, a Black person pushed an elderly Asian man to the ground in San Francisco; the man later died from his injuries. In another video, from New York City on March 29, 2021, a Black person pushes and beats an Asian American woman on the sidewalk in front of a doorway while onlookers observe the attack, then close their door on the woman without intervening or providing aid.
The point I’ve made through all of those experiences is that anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-Black racism: white supremacy. So when a Black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.”
This is factually untrue and empirical nonsense.
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, 27.5 percent of the 182,300 violent attackers of Asians were black, 24.1 percent were white, 21.4 percent were either Hispanic or “other”/mixed, and well under 25 percent were Asian.; FBI statistics from 2019 show that of 205 hate attackers of Asians, 95 (46.3 percent) were confirmed as white, while 30 were black, seven Latino, 18 members of racially mixed groups, and fully 70 not conclusively identified as members of any one race (Reilly).
In a self-conducted empirical study, political science professor Wilfred Reilly compiled data on Anti-Asian hate crime.
“My own data tell a similar and, if anything, less narrative-friendly story. I put together an Excel spreadsheet summarizing victim and offender characteristics for more than 100 of the most widely reported 2020 and 2021 attacks on Asian Americans, such as the brutal March 29 beating of a Chinese grandmother in broad daylight in Manhattan and the killing of South Asian Uber Eats driver Mohammad Anwar in the nation’s capital six days earlier. As of the time of this article’s publication, my data included 23 assaults for 2021 in which the attacker (or all known attackers) was black, 22 in which the race of the attacker(s) remains unknown, 12 in which the attacker was white, five in which the assault was committed by either a mixed-race individual or a racially mixed group of individuals, five in which the attacker was Hispanic, and one in which the attacker was Asian.1
Across the entire data set, 41 attackers or groups of attackers were black, 37 were of unknown race, 24 were white, 10 were biracial or part of mixed groups (some of which included attackers listed as being of unknown race), seven were Hispanic, and two were Asian—with one of these “Asian” suspects being South Asian or Middle Eastern.
All told, only 40 percent (24 out of 60) of the attack suspects conclusively identified by race happened to be white. A black man named Brandon Elliot—who was on parole for killing his own mother—was responsible for the Manhattan beating, while two African-American females aged 13 and 15 committed the crimes against the Uber driver on video.
The data are unmistakable. Asian Americans are not being attacked by “white supremacists” but by a very diverse group of thugs.”
See the full spreadsheet
Nevertheless, whatever the numbers are, all roads lead to white supremacy in the eyes of the woke movement currently underway.
“The Intel Community is one big circle-jerk” — U.S. SOCOM member
When Biden says the Intel Community says that white supremacy is the greatest threat to the U.S., let’s see what one Intel member has to say about the reports on ‘White Supremacy.’
In his recent book, Jack Posobiec talks about his interview with one active member in U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command).
“The Beltway intel community is one big circle jerk. They read the Washington Post every morning, watch CNN all day, and consider themselves informed. They never consider the fact that they might be getting information from bad sources.
Look at 2020. You had looters and Antifa tearing up American cities every night of the summer, biggest riots since LA, but FBI barely mentioned them. All these kids come in with criminal justice or poli sci degrees and think that counts as real-world experience, but they wouldn’t even know how to clear a corner.”
When asked what reports were coming in during 2020, the member said, “Well all the analysts were working from home because of COVID so they really only had access to unclassified. So they’re sitting home using Google and OSINT (open source intelligence) and everyone wants to write about the same Q Anon or white supremacist nut so we end up with 15 reports about one event and the SES (Special Executive Service) think it’s some kind of crisis. Then they brief the director about it, and then he goes to congress and tells them it’s the biggest threat in the country.”
This is called ‘circular reporting’, which the intelligence community has fallen trap to before when “the CIA falsely reported to the Bush Administration that Iraq had active weapons of mass destruction programs. This led to a chain reaction of ruining the credibility of the institution, as well as thousands upon thousands of avoidable deaths. Following this disaster, the intelligence community was supposed to put safeguards to protect it from ever happening again. No such safeguards were ever put in place, and instead the intelligence community grew at an even faster pace, so that now multiple agencies may be producing overlapping reports and analysis based on the same thinly-sourced raw intelligence. It is this same circular reporting that intelligence leaders exploit to shape narratives by selectively leaking to media, and then using the media reports as further confirmation of their preferred conclusions. This is the exact same dynamic that led to the Iraq War.” (Posobiec, The Antifa: Stories from Inside the Black Bloc, 5-6).
Potential Ramifications of this ‘Plan’
With the political divide running deeper, causing friends and family to split over affiliation and beliefs; with the FBI and Democratic states, like Oregon, the Democrat Party, the establishment media, that ignore Antifa— radicalized anarchists that seek to dismantle the U.S.’s systems and institutions; with conservatives and Republicans referred to as Nazi’s and consistently dehumanized and attacked; with media and the new administration regurgitating the same circular reporting, motivated to confirm their preconceived racial ideologies— this ‘plan’ has the potential of political and social persecution, reinforcing already hostile sentiment toward disagreeable political views, views that counter the left’s institutional narrative.
Corruption entails dishonesty, most times deliberate. But it can become normalized when one ideology assumes power within the political and social arm of society: The government and media, whose self-corroborating narratives then trickle down to the people underneath who become mouthpieces and defenders of the actions from above, becoming watchdogs for the proverbial “big brother’.
People may have varying motivations for reporting their friends and family. Perhaps they are, actually, ‘radicalized’, harboring violent, and even murderous, attitudes towards a group of people for an ideology they claim is worth dying for.
Radicalization can occur at any ends of the spectrum. It becomes unclear whether our finding can be objective, however, when so many, for years, have been socially reprimanded for espousing ‘white supremacist’ and ‘nazi’ beliefs; meanwhile, cities are burning, stores looted, and people attacked and threatened, because they are on the the ‘wrong’ side. Recently, black supremacists marched through Tulsa threatening to ‘shoot everything white in sight.’
There has also been a coordinated tendency to exclude certain stories from the narrative when they don’t fit; reinterpret them when they don’t show what they need to show, (see Yahoo article above); or make assumptions that may confirm what one thinks (see Boulder, Colorado & Atlanta mass shootings).
When the federal government is peddling the narrative of radicalization from whites, with institutions like the FBI and media outlets following suit, then the implementation of a national plan to report on your fellow neighbors, friends and family included, is the recipe for an increased surveilled and politically charged society, whereby prosecutions are predicated on the desire to sanction one’s political enemies.
This surveillance is characteristic of totalitarian societies. One common example is Nazi Germany:
“Ordinary people behaved in a variety of ways during the Holocaust. Motives ranged from pressures to conform and defer to authorities, to opportunism and greed, to hatred. In many places, the persecution of Jews occurred against a backdrop of centuries of antisemitism. In Germany, many individuals who were not zealous Nazis nonetheless participated in varying degrees in the persecution and murder of Jews and other victims. Following German occupation, countless people in other countries also cooperated in the persecution of Jews.
Everywhere, there were witnesses on the sidelines who cheered on the active participants in persecution and violence.
Most, however, remained silent.”
This comparison isn’t so ludicrous when we live in an era where everyone disagreeable to the left is considered a ‘Nazi’, without any reasonable evidence to back up the claim besides the ever shifting manipulation of language; so when we examine the words and actions of the federal government and acknowledge the coordination of the media and intelligence communities, that work to confirm their political ideologies, then the populace that conforms and defers to these institutions as legitimate authorities— to the point of reporting their own friends and families for political ‘radicalization’— should be met with alarm and suspicion.
We are, ad litteram, learning from history.