In early September, the US Department of Justice announced criminal charges against two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today), alleging that the state media outlet “orchestrated a massive scheme to influence the American public by secretly planting and financing a content creation company on U.S. soil.”

Separately, DOJ announced its theft (“seizure”) of 32 Internet domains supposedly used to “covertly spread Russian government propaganda with the aim of reducing international support for Ukraine, bolstering pro-Russian policies and interests, and influencing voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election. ”

The victims, per US Attorney Damian Williams? “[T]he American people, who received Russian messaging without knowing it.”

US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland weighed in as well: “The Justice Department will not tolerate attempts by an authoritarian regime to exploit our country’s free exchange of ideas in order to covertly further its own propaganda efforts.”

Oh, really?

Garland, once nominated to serve on the US Supreme Court, surely knows better. There is no “unless the ideas originate with parties I happen to dislike, or include content I disagree with” exception to the First Amendment’s free speech and free press guarantees.

DOJ doesn’t even enjoy the fig leaf of an “in extremis” excuse, such as a state of war existing between the US and Russia or an imminent threat of attack which the indictments and domain thefts might have thwarted.

Does the Russian regime “meddle” in US elections? Of course it does. All powerful regimes meddle in other countries’ elections.

The US regime has a long record of doing so, up to and including sponsoring coup attempts when other countries’ elections don’t go its preferred way.

Even smaller regimes get in on the election meddling game. The Israeli regime, acting through unregistered foreign agents, has openly and unashamedly meddled in US elections for decades, and to the tune of more than $100 million this year alone.

It’s not the Russian regime that Merrick Garland and friends mistrust. It’s you, the American voter.

Part of that mistrust may be simple paternalism: You’re too naive, perhaps too stupid, to sort matters out for yourself. If anyone not aligned with Merrick Garland and friends is permitted to talk to you, they’ll fill your head with nonsense and you’ll vote “the wrong way” in November.

Another part of it is raw, undalderated fear: If you hear things that might be true but that don’t line up with the goals, purposes, and desires of the US regime, you might make up your mind for yourself instead of just doing as you’re told.

The “Russian election interference” narrative is now into its third consecutive presidential election cycle. It slices! It dices! It juliennes!

It was Hillary Clinton’s excuse for running a poor campaign in 2016.

It was the mainstream media’s excuse for burying disclosures from Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020.

This year it provides cover for the bipartisan US military misadventure in Ukraine.

Garland and Co. fear your opinion … if it’s formed without censorship on their part.

Ask yourself why.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“The transgender thing is incredible,” said former president Donald Trump in late August, addressing the Moms for Liberty “Joyful Warriors” summit in late Washington.  “[Y]our kid goes to school, and he comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”

Wait … what? That’s not true.  That’s not even close to true. The next time a kid comes home from school with different genitalia courtesy of government medical “generosity” at taxpayer expense, with or without express written parental consent, will be the first time.

But Trump said it, and some people no doubt believe it — because Trump said it.

Trump, the demagogue, is a midwife, always attempting to deliver the next big moral panic (“widespread feeling of fear that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society”).

The members of every audience he addresses, directly or indirectly, are the prospective mothers.

Their credulity is the birth canal.

Fear is the bouncing baby [insert random gender identity here].

Fear is also the single most effective tool in a politician’s arsenal.

Fearful people are more likely to support politicians who pose as their savior — even if their fears are completely unfounded, and even if those politicians were the ones who scared them in the first place.

Where you find fear, you’re likely to find lies as well. Why? Because lying to you is easier for a politician than discovering you’ve been lied to is for you.

Most people want to believe what they’re told, especially by those who claim to support and defend their interests.

Many of those people, once lied to, close their minds to the possibility that they HAVE been lied to, no matter the actual evidence.

And both groups, are, in different measure, more likely to support the politician who lied to them … because they’re afraid, and believe that politician can and will “save” them.

No, Donald Trump isn’t the only demagogue out there. In fact, he’s not the only demagogue in this particular presidential race. Or, probably, in whatever room he happens to occupy at the moment.

He is, however, the best EXAMPLE of a demagogue currently on offer because his fear-inspiring lies are so over the top, so hare-brained, and so easily disproven that they don’t require reams of fine print analysis to rebut. Only the naive and credulous believe them for even a moment, and only the MOST naive and credulous believe them for more than a few minutes.

Unfortunately, he tells so many whoppers that an enthusiastic, if small, constituency exists for each one. He’s building a Coalition of the Afraid.

Oh, for emergency contraception against moral panic.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

How many times have you casually mentioned buying, say, new curtains to your spouse, then found yourself bombarded with ads for window treatments the next time you opened a new browser tab on your computer?

How many times has that kind of thing left you assuming that your phone, smart speaker, etc. are listening in on your conversations and adding relevant material to advertising databases?

Advertising platforms always deny it, and maybe — MAYBE — they’ve been technically honest in denying it. But there’s no doubt they track you in various ways, from browser history to phone location, and that they use the data they gather to target advertising at you.

If your phone notices you visited Home Depot or Lowe’s and your browser history shows you looking at gazebo plans, you’ll probably start seeing ads for tools and building materials shortly thereafter.

Now we have evidence of actual eavesdropping on your conversations.

Last year, Cox Media Group admitted — nay, promoted” — its “Active Listening” technology  in a since-deleted blog post: “Imagine … a world where no pre-purchase murmurs go unanalyzed, and the whispers of consumers become a tool for you to target, retarget, and conquer your local market.”

Last month, 404 Media reported (in a paywalled article) on a CMG “pitch deck” further promoting the technology and claiming major partnerships with Facebook, Google, and other major firms to deploy it. The unconvincing responses from those major firms range from outright denial to promised “investigations.”

If that technology really is just now rolling out for advertisers, my only question is why it took so long.

We know, courtesy of exiled whistleblower Edward Snowden, that the US government  possesses those kinds of capabilities — the NSA calls it “Google for Voice” — and has been using them on us for decades. Once the “private sector” knows a thing CAN be done, it figures out how to do that thing in profitable ways.

Here’s the part where most writers start bemoaning our loss of privacy and suggesting ways to get it back.

OK, fine … I bemoan our loss of privacy. Happy?

As for getting it back, nothing short of full global reversion to a pre-computer level of technology would suffice.

Am I happy that Bing knows I’m very interested in motorcycles at the moment and keeps showing me ads and stories about them?

Yes, kind of. It’s a little creepy, but also very useful.

Am I concerned that this level of data-gathering will produce terrible outcomes?

Absolutely.

Am I willing to cancel my Internet service, throw away my smart phone and Echo Dot, wear “facial recognition defeat” clothing everywhere I go, etc. just to keep Google from knowing I’m house-hunting?

Nope.

For better or worse, privacy is dead.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY