All Totalitarianism is Local

In important ways, all totalitarianism is local.

What do I mean by this?

I mean that totalitarianism is, ultimately, a failure to uphold ethical, honest principles one person at a time.  

A woman might live in the most robust democracy on the planet, but if her spouse is a violent man, for example, she is not going to be able to experience the freedoms democracy should afford her.  (For the record, I am married to a marvelous and peaceable man.)

A child might live in a society that protects his civil rights, but if his third grade teacher strikes his knuckles with a ruler every day, he will not feel safeguarded.

In this way, we can see that the character of a nation is dependent on the character of its citizens.  The fairness, truth-telling, and justice of a nation can best be manifested by the fairness, truth-telling, and justice of its public.  Without a population which respects and, indeed, honors, the rule of law, codified laws can be rendered functionally meaningless.

Enter the FBI and its "target of interest" program.

Through the FBI's knowingly false invocations of the Espionage Act and the Patriot Act, combined with its use of secrecy agreements, the agency has effectively subverted the Constitution.  But it has done so outside of the public view.

Americans' right to privacy?  This is undone when the FBI falsely claims that its wrongfully designated "targets of interest" require constant surveilling.

American' right to free speech?  The words of law-abiding members of the American public are being recorded without their knowledge or consent, and may be edited and altered by the FBI in an effort to mischaracterize them later.

Americans' right to free assembly?  The FBI coerces the friends and even family members of "targets of interest" to sign false witness statements that correspond to the FBI's false allegations, so Americans cannot truly consider their gatherings "free."

Americans' right to a free press?  The major newspapers in the United States have FBI "liaisons" who "assist" them in reporting the news with a view toward "national security concerns."  In other words, the FBI is engaging in censorship of the national news.  That's why an article in today's New York Times on the obstruction of the January 6 Commission by the Inspector General of the DHS appears on page A14 (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/secret-service-texts-jan-6.html), while an article about hearing aids merits front page headlines. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/health/fda-hearing-aids.html). Which article do you think is more important in the defense of the democracy?

What about the right of all Americans to be free from slander and defamation?  When the FBI wrongfully alleges that "targets of interest" are perpetrators of "prostitution" or "drug manufacture" or "espionage" or "terrorism" or crimes against the vulnerable, how does that disinformation preserve Americans' freedoms?  How exactly?  

When NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake asserted years ago that the national security agencies had fired his acquaintances simply for knowing him, he related, "They really do try to ruin your life."  

Now, Thomas Drake seemed like a calm and level-headed truth teller to me in the course of all of his public appearances.  It made no sense to me whatsoever that the NSA would undertake a plan to "ruin his life."  Was that hyperbole on Mr. Drake's part?  Histrionics?  Paranoia?  Or was it true?

My stalker, a leading member of Russian-affiliated organized crime within the United States, who wields frightening control over segments of the FBI, has stated that the worst "target of interest" program -- that which I myself have experienced -- is known as the "silent knife."  Purportedly, the FBI's manifestation of the "silent knife" involves slandering the "target" to everyone she knows.  Everyone.

Her childhood friends, her high school and college friends, her Oregon friends, her California friends, her husband's friends, her husband's colleagues, her Massachusetts neighbors, her California neighbors, the social justice advocates whom she calls, her health club staff, her physicians, her lawyers, her hairdresser, her handyman, her rental tenant, her plumber, her gardeners, the owner of the boatyard she uses, her carpenter, her utilities companies, her writer friends, her minister, her uncles, her aunt, her son, her son's friends, her son's girlfriend, her son's girlfriend's parents, her son's real estate agent, her Congresswoman, her California Superior Courthouse clerks and two judges .... the list goes on.

Now, there's a difference between the character assassination I have just described and outright assassination.  But not much.

And the FBI's brand of totalitarianism has rendered clear to me the fact that there is no limit beyond which the FBI is unwilling to go in its effort to "neutralize" (this is the word of far right personnel as it has been spoken in my presence) "targets of interest."  

Friends, keep in mind that "targets of interest" are reported to be heavily over-represented by Democrats, journalists, women and minorities.

So, Thomas Drake was not exaggerating, it turns out.  When he recounted that the NSA attempted to ruin all of his social ties, he spoke truly.  When he talked about the "kill lists" of the NSA, he really meant it.  And when he disclosed the national security agencies' unlawful dismantling of the Freedom of Information Act, he was sincere about that, too.

All totalitarianism is local, in that those within our acquaintance who fall prey to the will of dictators are themselves conscripted to aid and abet the dictator's crimes.  To the extent that Vladimir Putin is exerting a degree of control over the national security apparatus of the United States through corruption of far-right personnel within our own ranks, we face a critical juncture as a nation.

In defense of our Constitution, it is necessary to say no to the FBI's bribes, no to their intimidation, no to their attacks, no to their defamation, and no to their involvement in falsified law enforcement reporting for anti-democratic objectives.

This clarity of purpose is what democracy demands of us. 

Let it not be said that we failed to uphold the character of our nation when confronted by the exploits of those within the national security agencies who would betray the public trust.

Let it not be said that we faltered in this most necessary task.

Our fundamental courage and integrity can illuminate the truth of the FBI's malfeasance.

Our love for our nation requires nothing less.

Lane MacWilliams