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 ( 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. 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. ( 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?