On August 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Craig Robertson, a seventy-four-year-old Utah man, during a raid on his home. The man had posted numerous online threats, saying he wanted several state officials dead and had the means to make that happen. The authorities took his declarations at face value, although he was a near octogenarian dependent upon a cane to walk and was described as being “frail of health” by his neighbors.
Something is off, and for a variety of reasons. First, if this man really was a great threat to the life of multiple officials as the state believed, why was he not addressed earlier? After all, there were a variety of threats against multiple people that are now being deemed “credible” to justify the state’s actions, so why was he only addressed now?

In history classes (in public or private schools, colleges, and others), state propaganda, and mainstream history, a historical fiction has been spun that allegedly debunks any notion of noninterventionism. This is the myth of American isolationism.
The assertion usually goes that America was extremely isolationist prior to World War I and had no interest in involving itself in unnecessary warfare. After the Zimmermann telegram was sent, America was then forced to enter the war, quickly ended the war, and promptly withdrew from meddling with the outside world, even refusing to enter the League of Nations. America then spent the next two decades in isolation, foolishly ignoring the world stage until being unexpectedly attacked by Japan.
Variations exist, but this is the general reasoning

Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength.

Original Article: "Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act"

The RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act) has recently been making the rounds in the media, and rightfully so. The act is truly terrifying, but more than the open tyranny that it would further, the act illustrates a very clear problem from the perspective of the state.
In previous eras, either formally or informally, the state exercised a great deal of control over the information available to the wider population. This is no longer the case in the present day. With the advent of the internet and the resulting decentralization of media and other channels of information, the state has had increasingly fewer options at its disposal to control information. It is very obviously afraid of losing its position as the