prison cell bars

The FBI has recently published a document which should have you concerned. In summary it is a potential major assault on the 1st Amendment (the part about freedom of speech).

I don’t recall where I first became aware of it (the FBI document). The source story is from Paul Craig Roberts, though it has been referenced on many sites since his article published.

The document’s essence is that “conspiracy theories” can motivate believers to commit crimes.

My inference: And therefore by association those who may speak or write what is deemed “conspiracy” may be considered a potential enemy of the state. Pre-Crime arrest. Perhaps Red-Flagged.

Official and Prevailing Explanations

The FBI document says that conspiracy theories “are usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”  

Note the use of “official” and “prevailing.”  Official explanations are explanations provided by governments.  

Prevailing explanations are the explanations that the media repeats.  

If a person doubts official explanations such as these, that person is a “conspiracy theorist.” | An Open Invitation To Tyranny

Here’s the FBI document, redacted, 

Mr.Roberts goes on to say, “Official and prevailing explanations do not have to be consistent with facts.  It is enough that they are official and prevailing.  Whether or not they are true is irrelevant.  Therefore, a person who stands up for the truth can be labeled a conspiracy theorist, monitored, and perhaps pre-emptively arrested. “

Here’s my opinion and concern about this:

We Still Have The 1st Amendment, Right? (Maybe not so much…)

Yes, I agree that words can and do on occasion, bring on bad behavior in others. If I go out on the street and engage with a ‘triggerable snowflake’ with words which go against their political ideals (for example), that person may (if ‘triggered’ and emotionally uncontrolled enough), may punch me. Is it my fault or the attackers fault for punching me? Answer: The person who committed the assault – the ‘puncher’.

We are free in this country to speak words that challenge a notion or perceived truth, etc.. We’re free (or supposed to be free) to challenge “official and prevailing explanations”. I am free to speak harsh words if I wish. We have that right. Right?

The problem is, more and more people do not agree with that ‘right’. People are actually believing that we should NOT have the right to say things that ‘trigger’ them (for example).

The 1st Amendment protects our speech. We may be considered a jerk, a nut, or ‘whatever’ because of what we’re saying, but no one is forced to listen to us, right? They can walk away, albeit frustrated or angry about what they just heard or read. But it’s still the right of the person to speak it.

Setting the Stage | You May Be A Conspiracy Theorist

This FBI report sets the stage to further define a so called ‘conspiracy theorist’. The definition apparently will include anyone who doubts or challenges “official” explanations (aka government explanations). Additionally, anyone who doubts or challenges “prevailing” explanations (aka the mainstream media).

Here’s an example. Recently there was this very high profile and very rich pedophile named Epstein who was well connected to very powerful people around the world. When he ‘died’ in prison the other day, the “official” explanation AND the “prevailing” explanation was death by suicide. I immediately doubted that. And so did many others. So, therefor I suppose the FBI would consider me to be a conspiracy theorist? But wait, what did I just read this morning? Evidently it’s looking like he was murdered (surprise, surprise). You see how this works?

I could go on with MANY examples of former “conspiracy theory” which absolutely turned out to be the truth. It may often be a good thing to challenge “official” or “prevailing” explanations. To shine a light on the dark places looking for scrambling cockroaches. But apparently not according to today’s FBI.

I don’t know if the FBI report is simply good intentions with very obvious unintended bad consequences. But somehow I doubt it. This is not good for liberty.

In my estimation they are setting up definitions to further enhance actions they may choose to take, especially with the Patriot Act still in place. ANYONE, including any American who they define a “domestic terrorist” could be picked up without any legal recourse whatsoever. Bye bye.

Many people have already been silenced on the major platforms of today. But they’re evidently intent on continuing and expanding their attack on those who may challenge the “official” and “prevailing” explanations of today’s events, ideals, or ‘whatever’…

I’m Skeptical

I tend to be the type of person who is naturally skeptical. I may (and do) challenge some preconceived notions or political ideals that I may not agree with (or the “official” explanation of a given event). That’s called discourse. Freedom of expression. Might “they” define some things I may say as being a “conspiracy theorist”? That would just be expressing my opinion, right?

Maybe I’m being oversensitive to this. What do you think?

What country are we living in again?

Jump to Commentx