The meme that journalism is a holy profession, and everything else is
   not, is a little ludicrous. Of course Jacob Appelbaum at one point said
   to call him an activist instead of a journalist is to call him a
   terrorist. Of course the First Amendment was poorly worded, it really
   should be freedom to express and carry any opinion, but maybe due to
   advancements in education, people with high school educations could be
   smarter than the founding fathers. Right now if the journalists have
   their way, the only way to have special privileges is to get a large
   following or to show up to be hired at a media outlet, and have
   everything you write to be pre-approved by an editor.
   In the long run ( [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-PfuIz-Do Jacob
   Appelbaum: If Everything is Under Surveillance, How Can We Have a
   Democracy? )  I question how people can read some pretty significant
   things and forget about them. Completely.
   It's not impossible that foreign intelligence could co-opt local
   dissident movements, all the evidence points to that being true during
   the Cold War, and they would have motive to do so. This is despite many
   journalists insisting that many US excesses were unwarranted.
   "A blackthrow is a small computer that can be hidden inside government
   agencies or corporations. It connects to the Tor or I2P networks and
   publishes its SSH server as a hidden service in any of these networks.
   The TCMB field agent can then connect to the blackthrow anonymously and
   remote control it to deliver any type of packets to any location at the
   internets, that the host organization can connect to."
   There would be significant value for foreign intelligence agencies to
   plant anonymizing routers into government agencies and corporations.
   Afterall, Clinton's email server had a Tor exit node log into it. Hurm.
   (But it wasn't hacked)
   Anyway, our legal system has false documents within
   it. [2]https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rigmaiden Rigmaiden's
   legal case do not seem to be legally possible, and it is rather obvious
   that it is so. The idea that a massive bureaucracy does not document
   what it does, and that you have to get federal agents to testify
   because they maintain all records orally is a bit ludicrous. The case
   was a massive lost opportunity or a massive lie.
   Anyway, it's not like a large part of US history is excluded from US
   history textbooks.
   ( [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party ) I mean, if
   anyone knew that, they would act on that information right? A good (not
   best) way to know what someone knows is to examine what information
   they operate on, right? If the history books are unreliable, than no
   one would expect the history books to be reliable, right?
   In the end, everyone is well aware of regulatory capture. Who regulates
   whom?

References

   1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH-PfuIz-Do
   2. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rigmaiden
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party