Also, T. Carlsons angeblicher "Sozialismus" hin oder her - ich bleibe ein willenloser, devoter Greenwald Fanboy:
If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?
[...] The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot without denying that there is any danger at all.
Those who denounced the excesses of McCarthyism were not insisting that there were no Communists in government; those denouncing the excesses of the Clinton administration’s attempts to seize more surveillance power after the Oklahoma City courting bombing were not denying that some anti-government militias may do violence again; those who objected to the protracted and unhinged assault on civil liberties by the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations after 9/11 were not arguing that there were no Muslim extremists intent on committing violence.
The argument then, and the argument now, is that the threat was being deliberately inflated and exaggerated, and fears stoked and exploited, both for political gain and to justify the placement of more and more powers in the hands of the state in the name of stopping these threats. That is the core formula of authoritarianism — to place the population in a state of such acute fear that it acquiesces to any assertion of power which security state agencies and politicians demand and which they insist are necessary to keep everyone safe.
There is, relatedly, a massive political benefit from convincing the population that the opponents and critics of those in power do not merely hold a different ideology but are coup plotters, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. That is the same political benefit that accrued from trying to persuade the population that adversaries of the Democratic Party were treasonous Kremlin agents. The more you can demonize your opponents as something monstrous, the more political power you can acquire.
And as Democrats and liberals now gear up to demand a new War on Terror, this one domestic in nature, it should be no surprise that the rhetorical leaders of their effort now are the same lowlife neocon and Rovian slanderers — Bill Kristol, David Frum, Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, Rick Wilson — who demonized everyone who questioned them as part of the first War on Terror as traitors and terrorist-lovers and subversives. It is not a coincidence that neocons are leading the way now as liberals’ favorite propagandists: they are the most skilled and experienced in weaponizing and exaggerating terrorism threats for political gain and authoritarian power.
Ultimately, if this “armed insurrection” and threat of domestic terrorism are so grave, why do media figures and politicians in both parties — from Adam Schiff to Liz Cheney — keep lying about it and peddling fictions? Politicians and media figures do that only when they know that the threat, in reality, is not nearly as menacing as they need it to be to fulfill their objectives of political gain and coercive power.
Mir ist auch eigentlich egal ob er ein guter oder schlechter Journalist ist. Wenn sich außer ihm auf der nicht explizit rechten Seite keiner mehr traut, solche offensichtlichen Widersprüche auszusprechen, dann ist das kein Ausweis seiner angeblichen Affinität zur rechten Seite, sondern einfach nur ein Armutszeugnis für alle anderen, die über sowas lieber vornehm schweigen, um ihr Weltbild vom heldenhaften Widerstand der Demokraten gegen den "Faschismus" nicht mit der traurigen Tatsache zu beschmutzen, dass die demokratische Regierung nebst angeschlossenen Sicherheits- und Propagandaapparaten im Moment deutlich totalitäre Ambitionen an den Tag legt.