By Matt Underwood DOJ quietly removes study showing right wing attacks ‘outpace’ those by left
The revelation that the Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly removed a study from its website highlighting the disparity between right-wing and left-wing domestic terrorism is, frankly, concerning. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), reportedly showed a significant imbalance, with right-wing incidents far outpacing those originating from the left. The very act of removing such research raises eyebrows and invites questions about transparency and the potential suppression of inconvenient truths. The fact that the archived version of the study is still accessible via the Wayback Machine, a digital preservation tool, is a testament to the enduring power of the internet and the difficulty of completely erasing information.
The study’s removal is particularly unsettling because it touches upon a sensitive and often-politicized topic: domestic terrorism. The data reportedly revealed a clear pattern, linking right-wing individuals to a significantly higher number of violent domestic terrorism events, leading to a greater loss of life. This is more than just a matter of semantics; it’s about acknowledging the reality of the threat landscape in the United States. The stark difference, with some figures suggesting a ratio vastly in favor of right-wing incidents, paints a clear picture.
The official explanation for the removal – a generic statement citing a review of websites and materials in accordance with executive orders – feels inadequate. While these reviews might be routine, the timing and the specific content of the study raise suspicions. The language used, such as “some pages and publications will be unavailable,” offers little detail and leaves the door open to interpretation. The concern is that the government is hiding inconvenient facts, and engaging in censorship to push a false narrative,
This situation isn’t simply about academic debate or statistical analysis; it’s about the public’s right to information and the potential for that information to shape our understanding of threats to national security. The fact that the FBI, before any perceived political influence, identified right-wing groups as the primary domestic terrorism threat underscores the significance of such findings. The deliberate removal of this data only strengthens the narrative that the government is actively manipulating information.
One of the most striking elements of the situation is the widespread nature of the debate, it’s not simply a matter of a few data points. The study’s findings, when viewed through this lens, become even more significant. The removal of the study feels like a betrayal of the public trust, a deliberate attempt to obscure facts that could inform policy, protect citizens, and hold accountable those who would seek to do harm.
The implications are far-reaching. If the government can quietly remove inconvenient research, what other information is being suppressed or manipulated? The fear is that such actions are part of a broader effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion. The parallels to dystopian fiction, like George Orwell’s “1984” and the concept of the “memory hole,” are hard to ignore. This is especially concerning as we rely more and more on AI, which scrapes its information from the internet.
The removal of the study appears to be more than a clerical issue; it reflects a fundamental challenge to the principles of transparency, accountability, and open access to information. It’s a reminder that in the battle for truth, vigilance is essential. The study’s removal should be a call to action, not only for those who understand the facts, but for all who value an informed and honest discussion about the challenges facing our society.