By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The National Institute of Justice’s 2024 study, “What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism,” reveals a significant increase in militant, nationalistic, violent extremism within the United States. The research indicates far-right attacks consistently surpass all other forms of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Specifically, since 1990, far-right extremists have committed substantially more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist groups. This study likely faced removal due to its findings, as they conflict with the political narrative attempting to shift blame for political violence.
Read the original article here
DOJ Quietly Deletes Study on Politics of Domestic Terrorists. The Justice Department’s decision to scrub a study revealing inconvenient truths about domestic terrorism is a blatant move that should raise serious concerns. It’s a stark reminder of how facts, inconvenient as they may be, can be conveniently erased in the face of a preferred narrative. This act isn’t just about deleting a document; it’s about trying to rewrite reality itself.
The core of the issue revolves around the political leanings of domestic terrorists. The study, now vanished from the National Institute of Justice’s website, likely contained data that directly contradicted the prevailing narrative that right-wing violence is a lesser threat. The information available, much of which is echoed by reputable sources like the Cato Institute, paints a clear picture: right-wing extremists, encompassing white supremacists, anti-abortion activists, and those embracing other right-wing ideologies, are responsible for a significantly larger number of murders and a considerable share of politically motivated violence. In contrast, left-wing terrorism, encompassing groups motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, or environmentalism, accounts for a smaller fraction of the total violence.
The implications of this discrepancy are far-reaching. If the study corroborated these findings, as it likely did, its deletion becomes an act of political expediency. It suggests a desire to suppress information that undermines a preferred narrative, one that conveniently shifts focus away from the primary source of domestic terror. It’s not about simply being “wrong;” it’s about actively distorting reality to fit a specific agenda. And the question is, what are they going to get away with next?
The timing of this deletion is also worth noting. It occurs in a political climate where the rhetoric around domestic terrorism has been heavily influenced by right-wing talking points. In essence, the narrative from Republicans is the reverse of what is occurring. The current government, or at least a significant part of it, has aligned itself with this viewpoint, thus making the study’s conclusions politically inconvenient. This is reminiscent of a historical precedent where reality is not politically expedient.
The removal of the study is even more troubling because it suggests a disregard for the truth. It is a dangerous precedent because it potentially undermines the role of government agencies to present unbiased data and engage in open discussion. When facts are deemed undesirable, they are quietly erased, leaving the public to exist in an unreality bubble. This form of information manipulation is concerning at best and arguably, treasonous.
The act of deleting the study also raises questions about accountability. Who authorized this action? What motivated the decision? Will the information contained in the study ever be made public? These questions deserve answers. It is vital that such actions be challenged and that those responsible are held accountable. There is a growing fear among citizens that the democratic process is being tampered with.
The fact that the study was deleted does not erase the reality it likely revealed. The data, despite being suppressed, exists and can be sought out. It’s a stark reminder of the importance of critical thinking, verifying information, and not accepting narratives without questioning their source. The information that contradicts the prevailing narrative cannot be suppressed, though the act of doing so reveals the fragility of the narrative being pushed. The suppression of information is the hallmark of fascism.
Ultimately, the DOJ’s quiet deletion of the study is a disservice to the public. It undermines transparency, erodes trust in government institutions, and obscures the truth about domestic terrorism. It’s a move that invites scrutiny and calls for accountability. The desire to control the narrative has been a consistent and dangerous game being played by a specific faction of the population. It is time for the media and the public to call out what is happening.