The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1237

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 

from the beautiful to the repugnant, 

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 

you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 

You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

LEAKED! US GOV. EMPLOYEES CONSPIRiNG TO SABOTAGE! TRUMP ADMIN

DEMOCRATS ADVOCATING FOR VIOLENCE...

Subscribe To My Bitchute Channel HERE

Girls With Guns

The Life Of The Nation Is Not Secure...

The Deep State Is A Cabal Of Kleptocrats. They Permeate The Halls, Offices And Streets Of Washington. They Are Corrupt BureaucRATS That Make The Gears Turn.

I See Only One Way Of Ending It. 

A Truth Commission.

Any And All Crimes They Admit To, They Cannot Be Prosecuted For, They Will Have To Name Names, And Those That Continue The Lies Go Straight To Federal Prison. They And No Family Member Of Theirs Can Ever Hold A Federal Job Again For Two Generations.

Drain The Swamp.

Dear Rikki: These Numbers Are Coming Up...

 

Revenge Served Cold.

(I guess I'm paranoid: let me clarify - Another Legislator will replace them)

We hear you're leaving, that's OK

I thought our little wild time had just begun

I guess you kind of scared yourself, you turn and run

And The REAL Problem Is:

 

Actually, there is a shitload of problems.

'Q-Anon' Bears Striking Resemblance to Bolshevik Psy-Op From 1920s Known As 'Operation Trust'

"Operation Trust" was a Bolshevik counterintelligence operation run from 1921 to 1926 aimed at neutralizing opposition by creating the false impression that a powerful group of military leaders had organized to stop the communists' takeover.

Here's an except on the "Trust" operation from pages 13-14 of Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn's book, "New Lies for Old":

The similarities with the Q-Anon "Trust The Plan™" psy-op are remarkable.

From Wikipedia's article on Operation Trust:

Operation Trust was a counterintelligence operation of the State Political Directorate (GPU) of the Soviet Union. The operation, which was set up by GPU's predecessor Cheka, ran from 1921 to 1926, set up a fake anti-Bolshevik resistance organization, "Monarchist Union of Central Russia", MUCR, in order to help the OGPU identify real monarchists and anti-Bolsheviks. The created front company was called the Moscow Municipal Credit Association.

[...] The one Western historian who had limited access to the Trust files, John Costello, reported that they comprised thirty-seven volumes and were such a bewildering welter of double-agents, changed code names, and interlocking deception operations with "the complexity of a symphonic score", that Russian historians from the Intelligence Service had difficulty separating fact from fantasy.

That sounds like the Confucius-style nonsense put out by Q-Anon.

Is General Flynn our General Brusliv?

Q-Anon made Trump supporters who were right to be angry over the criminal nature of our ruling class delude themselves with fantasies that "White hats" in the military were going to save us while Attorney General William Barr was busy covering-up the Jeffrey Epstein case and the Kushner administration was busy pardoning fraudsters who donated to the Aleph Institute and releasing traitor Jonathan Pollard from parole to "make aliyah" in Israel.

Just as opposition were outed and arrested by Operation Trust, potentially dozens of Q-Anoners were outed and arrested as a result of the march on the Capitol.

Many of the neocons in our government are the literal descendants of Trotskyites, so it's not out of the question they'd pull the same trick twice.

This Q-Anon operation has had some blowback -- Q-believing Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt was horrifically executed in cold blood by a Capitol police officer and turned into a martyr -- but the movement has gotten tons of Trump supporters thrown in prison and labeled domestic terrorists.

The Biden administration is now plotting to use the events of Jan 6 to justify PATRIOT Act 2.0 which aims to criminalize all dissent as domestic terrorism.

Their neo-Bolshevik revolution is almost complete...

The Reason For All The Dystopian Orwellian Propaganda:

 

MSM calls for “new definition of free speech”

New buzzwords in the mainstream media bubble spell trouble for those outside it

Part of the main duty of OffGuardian is to troll through the masses of media output and try and pick up patterns. Sometimes the patterns are subtle, a gentle urging behind the paragraphs. Sometimes they’re more like a sledgehammer to the face.

This has been face-hammer week. In fact, it’s been a face-hammer year.

From “flatten the curve” to “the new normal” to “the great reset”, it’s not been hard to spot the messaging going on since the start of the “pandemic”. And that distinct lack of disguise has carried over into other topics, too.

We pointed out, a few days ago, the sudden over-use of the phrase “domestic terrorism” preparing us for what is, almost certainly, going to be a truly horrendous piece of new legislation once Biden is in office.

Well, the buzz-phrase doing the rounds in the wake of Donald Trump being banned from the internet is “the new definition of free speech”…and variations on that theme.

Firstly, and papers on both sides of the Atlantic want to be very clear about this, Donald Trump being banned simultaneously from every major social network is not in any way inhibiting his free speech.

Indeed none of the tens of thousands of people banned from twitter et al. have had their free speech infringed either. Neither have any of the proprietors – or users – of the Parler app which the tech giants bullied out of existence.

Free Speech is totally intact no matter how many people are banned or deplatformed, the media all agree on that (even the allegedly pro-free speech think tanks).

They also agree that maybe…it shouldn’t be. Maybe “free speech” is too dangerous in our modern era, and needs a “new definition”.

That’s what Ian Dunt writing in Politics.co.uk thinks, anyway, arguing it’s time to have a “grown-up debate” about free speech.

The Financial Times agrees, asking about the “limits of free-speech in the internet era”.

Thomas Edsall, in the New York Times, wonders aloud if Trump’s “lies” have made free speech a “threat to democracy”.

The Conversation, a UK-based journal often at the cutting edge of the truly terrifying ideas, has three different articles about redefining or limiting free speech, all published within 4 days of each other.

There’s Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others, a drab piece of dishonest apologia which argues Trump wasn’t silenced, because he could make a speech which the media would cover…without also mentioning that the media has, en masse, literally refused to broadcast several of Trump’s speeches in the last couple of months.

The conclusion could have been written by an algorithm analysing The Guardian’s twitter feed:

the suggestion Trump has been censored is simply wrong. It misleads the public into believing all “free speech” claims have equal merit. They do not. We must work to ensure harmful speech is regulated in order to ensure broad participation in the public discourse that is essential to our lives — and to our democracy.

Then there’s Free speech in America: is the US approach fit for purpose in the age of social media?, a virtual carbon copy of the first, which states:

The attack on the Capitol exposed, in stark terms, the dangers of disinformation in the digital age. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which certain elements of America’s free speech tradition may no longer be fit for purpose.

And finally, my personal favourite, Why ‘free speech’ needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets in which author Peter Ives warns of the “weaponising of free speech” and concludes:

Oh My Goodness, I Sure Hope Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Get Banned From All Social Media....