Charles Hugh Smith – So my little-visited Wikipedia entry was minding its own business, not bothering anyone, until I dared to criticize the Clinton Foundation. The next day, my Wikipedia entry was taken out and shot by a mysterious “editor.” It was just coincidence, right, that my Wikipedia entry had been available for years without offending anyone, and then suddenly it’s deleted the day after I dared to criticize the Clinton Foundation.

Actually, I criticized all foundations, but that doesn’t matter; what mattered is that I criticized what cannot be criticized.

I guess that drone strike on my car was coincidence, too. I called a contact in DoD (Department of Defense) and he said it was logged as a “targeting error.” Of course.

Ok, so the drone strike is a “joke,” meaning it’s no joke to the thousands of people who are murdered by U.S. drone strikes outside the U.S. It’s a “joke” like Hillary Clinton asking if Wikileaks honcho Julian Assange could be eliminated by a drone strike so he could no longer release data that might embarrass her or her campaign.

Though it’s not yet illegal to ask questions, it’s certainly dangerous to do so. But let’s take a chance and ask: how do we know that drone strikes haven’t targeted critics of U.S. policy?

Do you really think the DoD, White House, CIA, NSA or State Department would admit that drones liquidated a “threat” whose “crime” was criticizing U.S. policies? I hope you’re not so naive as to believe official assurances that drones only kill people who were just about to blow up Baltimore, only we nailed them just in time.

With “threat” being defined by those in authority, what’s to stop those with power from rewarding their cronies and punishing their critics? This is the essence of quiet fascism.

Continue reading →