The Daily Mail finally published their article on the FBI tampering.
It has a number of factual inaccuracies and the language is very spun towards the salacious narrative, but it does contain a number of the technical findings, as well as video interviews with former FBI agent, Dr. Richard Kiper, Suneel Chakravorty, and yours truly (below).
It doesn’t feel good to promote something that contains such false and defamatory claims, but sometimes you have to lose small battles to win the war.
Right now we’re being silenced by mainstream media despite dispositive evidence that the FBI manufactured and planted evidence to prejudice a jury and get a conviction.
I don’t necessarily believe that “any publicity is good publicity,” but undoing a hateful false narrative is much harder than creating one, so you have to celebrate the small victories.
A commenter, Peter Longworth, offered this comment on Clyne
By Peter Longworth
I don’t think Nicki Clyne is a bad person. By that, I’m of the opinion that she would not deliberately do something to knowingly hurt someone else for her own selfish reasons.
That said, Nicki Clyne inhabits a very different psychological universe than most of us.
As individuals, we all have our own idiosyncrasies. Our perceptions of life and the world we live in are all different.
Yet for any society to function, there needs to be a certain degree of shared belief and value system that we commonly subscribe to. In most stable societies, this is the case, even though there will always be people like Nicki who fall outside that scope.
In many ways, Nicki represents the impending threat to social stability and democracy that currently confronts us. Since 9/11 and the growth of tech dependency and social media, we have collectively entered a post-truth world where not only opinions about facts divide us, but even acceptance of the facts themselves.
It is hardly surprising that Nicki has completely bought into the whole loony right QAnon Trumpist agenda.
After all, this whole movement is no different from Raniere’s cult scene: an all powerful leader who can do no wrong, dictating misleading platitudes to a sea of gullible acolytes who accept them without question. It is the subversion of the individual to the will of the movement, autocracy overcoming freedom.
And this is the weird thing: Nicki shows great reflective sensitivity and intelligence in many personal writings on her website.
She ain’t no dumbass!
For example, her description of a riot following a Canadian hockey match is both vivid and moving in its revulsion and horror. I just wonder though how Nicki would describe what happened on January 6th 2021 in the Capitol Building.
This is the point.
Just as members of a cult can never see themselves as members of a cult, they are equally incapable of seeing anything wrong with what their leaders do – whether that’s Raniere raping a 12-year-old (Rhiannon) or any other underage girl, or Donald Trump and others subverting the basic democratic rights and personal freedoms that most Americans have so long taken for granted.
One of Nicki’s most recent posts was on the war in Ukraine. It didn’t say that much one way or the other, apart from being a little disparaging about the mainstream media’s reporting of it.
But the interesting thing: you had the feeling Nicki wanted to take a pro-Russian stance, but something deep down just couldn’t allow her to do it – the Trumpist autocrat conflicted with the pacifist humanist. Just like her social media silence on Roe: religious right wing bigotry v Raniere’s birth control system.
We have all the naive stuff about the FBI and the justice system. We are asked to believe both are corrupt to the hilt. Of course, as most of us come to realize following our teenage years, things aren’t perfect and there’s an element of corruption in all large institutions, public and private. That’s why we set up other independent entities to regulate, and if necessary, investigate them.
However, such agencies provide an essential service in regulating the country, ensuring national laws are upheld, and that no one is above the law, and that goes for cult leaders and former presidents.
Consent is a concept that is perhaps more complex than some people think. According to testimony, Nicki was tasked with investigating the “seduce Keith” assignment in DOS. Presumably, she knows therefore how widespread it was. It’s also true that Nicki knew about the collateral system, which she has a different understanding of. And yet she knows that the asymmetrical structure of DOS meant that in Orwell’s words, some people were more equal than others.
Can she not empathize with the lower echelons of young women, who must have felt a degree of obligation to carry out such an assignment if given it by a superior?
Does that amount to full consent? The same applies to the branding, and Nicki has herself admitted its victims were unaware it was Raniere’s initials. Does she not think they were entitled to know that?
Is that full consent?
Finally, we live at a time when the world is teetering on the edge of oblivion, whether it’s nuclear Armageddon, climate change apocalypse, social, political and economic meltdown, a properly nasty pandemic, or any combination of the above. There’s never been a more important time in human history for us to get together and try to sort out all the shit.
I just hope Nicki wakes up one day and smells the coffee. If she can’t, there’s really not much hope for the rest of us.