Thursday, May 30, 2019

Borderless (Lauren Southern) Documentary

A decent enough documentary to show people who are somewhat ambivalent when it comes to the question of refugees and migration into Europe (or an inflow of migrants/refugees from poor countries to wealthy countries).

While they occasionally do get figures about how much an illegal migrant may have paid a smuggler or the number of migrants per day in a refugee center, statistics are kept to a minimum. It's never really clear how many migrants are going into one area or how much this may cost the taxpayer.

The cost is likely greater per capita in Europe compared to the U.S. if the situation in France is very comparable to the rest of Europe, with its vast swathes of unhoused migrants sleeping in tents under bridges, unable to find employment, even though they speak French, in the case of the ONE example they provide. It's not clear if he was truly seeking work or how widespread this is. But the point to be made is that many fleeing to Europe, despite banners exclaiming "REFUGEES WELCOME", will find themselves impoverished and in the streets, disaffected, perhaps wishing they were home. In fact, when asked, many of them to express a degree of regret. Strangely exempt are any explorations of countries with migrants who are better accommodated with welfare and government subsidized housing, except for two women toward the end in Ireland.

It never makes a strong distinction between how conditions differ in various countries or the extent of how it affects the taxpayer or the host population of these European countries. Of course I understand they have a limited amount of time, but it could be feasible to class some of the countries by how generous they are with welfare and how many are essentially "displaced." After all, some countries tend to be more attractive to migrants based on public services offered. Those crossing the mediterranean often head through Italy and to Sweden, for example—they tend to head where the greatest resources will be supplied.  In Ireland they did ask a representative about the plight of the taxpayer when it came to funding migrants, but he wouldn't answer.

The documentary relies on emotion more than logic. One would think there would be numbers interspersed to really get a feel for how these countries are being affected. Of course what is being presented is good—it simply needs to be buttressed with the cost of these circumstances. Essentially the documentary suffers from imbalance in this regard. Some people will be swayed by more emotional appeals, but the effects are only hinted at, and more people may be swayed if the effects are elaborated upon rather than simply intimated.

The emphasis of the documentary is more towards the experience of the migrant than that of the host population. Which isn't bad, but perhaps more balance could be supplied here, too. Arguments promulgated entirely toward the host population are sometimes not effective for certain individuals because they have a greater empathy for "the other". To show the poor circumstances and the exploitation of the migrants by traffickers has its advantages, especially in a polarized political climate where people who fight back against these policies are often deemed "racist".

One interesting segment is in Turkey where a farmer (not a migrant, but a person living on the Turkish coast) is interviewed. It demonstrates the effects on countries where people are migrating from (well, more so countries that migrants are being trafficked through), who also suffer as a result of the traffickers.

Since they are approaching from the angle of the migrant, it might also be prudent to look at how this flow of migrants affects the country of origin. For example, a shortage of men in Syria and more women being forced into the work force. Since it is costly to migrate, most of the men migrating are wealthier than the average citizen from their home country, which would imply that the more capable or affluent citizens are being funneled out of their countries of origin, perhaps further hollowing out the middle class and deteriorating the country to where it will be even more difficult to transcend its status as a developing country.

They're leaving a country where they were sufficiently integrated and possibly productive for a country where they are seen as a burden, are often on the dole, and segregate to form enclaves where it no longer feels like Europe, but rather Little Somalia, Little Pakistan, etc. It is effective to address both sides of the problem, but the documentary seems light on content and doesn't adequately address the plight of either the host population or the migrating population.

Essentially this is a documentary for people who are afraid to address the problems of third world immigration, and it gives them arguments about the exploitation of migrants by traffickers and NGOs (one person they interviewed was using the NGO for money laundering, not to mention they also charged the migrants several thousand—in fact in just a few minutes this article will do more to show the costs of immigration than Borderless does in 90 minutes), and the poor conditions the migrants are often subjected to, while being very costly to the taxpayer, and if the migration is en masse, then of course there won't be enough housing or welfare to go around, and there are risks of enclaves forming and a lack of assimilation.

It paints a very innocent portrait of migrants as well. You want see anything about the crime they bring. They just show some interviews where a few of them are pretty nice. And this is true, some of them are genuinely nice or don't necessarily mean anyone harm. But the documentary is incomplete if we don't even consider grooming gangs, Rotherdam, London knife crime, etc. It does address violence within the camps themselves, but it doesn't seem to mention this violence spilling into the countries they settle in, except in a quick one-second comment, at best.

One person interviewed mentioned that it's greatly preferable to have a trickle of migrants come in rather than a flood, and too many immigrants are coming at a time. This is true. But if the latter is bad, is the former simply the same, only to a lesser extent? Yes, too much water is bad, but a smaller amount is good, yet the same doesn't necessarily follow for immigrants. I'd rather have 1,000 Somali immigrants than 100,000, but are there problems to be found even in smaller numbers? There is no reason to believe enclaves won't form and that they will assimilate just because there is a smaller number at one time. The history of multiculturalism is plagued with parallel societies. Those who are most alike tend to congregate together. It doesn't matter if they come in small numbers or large numbers.

We had forced school integration in the U.S., and there is government subsidized housing that often shifts the demographics to be more diverse, but these are forced government measures, and when we look beyond that, neighborhoods are still very segregated, and when it comes to voluntary activities that are not influenced by the government, such as churches, they tend to be overwhelmingly of one race. This is true of populations with the highest and lowest incomes, so it's not just a matter of class either.

If it's a burden on the taxpayer with a lot of migrants, it will also be a burden with fewer migrants, just not as noticeably. The sole reason for the migration being thought of as a good thing is to grow the GDP, but this benefits corporations at the expense of the citizen, for their wealth does not increase as a result of this—rather their wages decrease, just as was experienced with women entering the work force—the GDP went up but at a cost to wages. This is not to say certain populations should be excluded from entering the work force, but it is clear that more workers or a larger GDP isn't an inherent good and has costs that must be considered.

But more important than the economy is the fact that even a small shift in demographics is an alteration of what the country was, and sets in motion a trend that will transform the country. In a democracy, people vote based on their own interests. Those who are born within a country will likely favor their own country. But can the same be said for the immigrant, who, despite leaving his country of origin, may still have loyalty to his former country? Do they not have an incentive to lobby for a loosening of immigration policies that will bring the rest of their family into the country they immigrated to? What of the so-called "extended family"? Even if they bring their family here, does that mean they wouldn't want to bring more people who are of their nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion?

Europe typically took in other European immigrants, and the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc, did the same. The new wave of immigrants are non-europeans, third worlders, and not an asset, moreover they are not able to thrive in these countries independently (yes, there are exceptions, but the data shows that as a group they are heavily subsidized).

The state should be serving the interests of the people and not fooling them into diluting their culture (which is intimately tied with race and ethnicity) on soulless economic arguments about immigration of third worlders being necessary for increasing the GDP.

It's a civic nationalist documentary that seems to imply immigration is good, but only in controllable amounts, and as long as they come legally. A large part of my dissatisfaction with the documentary is because I'm not really the target audience, but this should be shown to anyone who blithely goes along with mass migration into Europe (or anywhere for that matter), whether they be refugees or economic migrants.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Waco: The Rules of Engagement | Waco: A New Revelation

Waco: The Rules of Engagement (TROE) is probably the best documentary on the subject of the siege, while Waco: A New Revelation (ANR) fills in some of the gaps, but in truth, doesn't add a lot extra overall. If you only watch one, it should be the former. 

The raid on the Branch Davidian compound began on February 28, 1993 by the ATF. 6 Davidians and 4 ATF agents died that day, after which, the FBI took over in a siege that lasted 51-days, eventually involving the military and the usage of a tank, ending with the compound burning down and an additional 76 Davidians dying by April 19, 1993. There's still speculation to this day whether or not the fire was started by the government (inadvertently or deliberately)

The warrant was acquired based on very weak evidence, and it's debatable if there truly was probable cause to justify the warrant at all. 

An interesting and well-sourced read on the subject of the warrant and a chronicling of the evidence can be found here.   

Sexual abuse allegations make up a sizable chunk of the warrant, but those charges are outside of the jurisdiction of the ATF, and any investigations involving child abuse in regards to David Koresh, the leader of the Davidians, had been closed prior to the warrant being issued. It would seem the main reason to include these allegations was to poison the well and turn the public against Koresh. 

The Davidians had invited the ATF to inspect their facility at least twice. And even Koresh suggests that the ATF could have seized him when he headed to down, if that was their main concern. 

An image of a document showing that he had allowed undercover agents to use his guns (Koresh actually was at least aware of Rodriguez being undercover). 

Instead they head to the compound in full riot gear with rifles. It's not clear who fired first, but the footage and activity logs have conveniently disappeared. It's suggested by both those who are sympathetic to the Davidians and even people like Mark Potok, who subscribe to the official narrative that paints the government in the best light possible, that the shooting might have begun when dogs rushed out of the compound and were shot by ATF agents. Soon after, Koresh and Perry were shot. 

Rivero (There are some images of mangled and burnt corpses within the link) makes an interest case for the ATF firing first. Indeed, the ATF are concealing themselves behind the vehicles and none of them appear to have any bullet holes, but there are an ample amount of bullet holes at the door and spread throughout the building's facade. Furthermore, charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder were dropped, though some of the Davidians went to jail on other charges (six Davidians went to federal prison for manslaughter and weapon offenses). 

Especially harrowing is the call to 911 made by one of the Davidians requesting they call off the ATF who are spraying them with rifle fire, reminding them that the compound is full of women and children; due to the indiscriminate rifle fire, a women nursing a child is shot. 

Also troubling is the incident with Schroeder, who wasn't present when the ATF began their raid, but led to his death when he tried to enter the compound. It's claimed he had a gun and drew it, but as one of the other Davidians who had accompanied him was escorted away, two more shots were heard. At least one ATF agent and the captured Davidian reported this. In the autopsy report, two gun shots are present above Schroeder's ear. While it could be argued that he still threatened them somehow (pointing the gun or brandishing another weapon after ostensibly being neutralized), the incident does sound suspiciously like an execution, if those witness accounts were correct. 

What Becomes of the Evidence? 
Last summer, amidst growing evidence that the FBI had used pyrotechnic tear gas rounds during its final assault on Mount Carmel, the Texas Dept. of Public Safety asked Smith to take control of several tons of evidence that it had been storing since 1993. The agency was in charge of the evidence, which was being kept in a storage locker at its headquarters on North Lamar, and found itself caught between the demands of the state's open records laws and officials from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, who wanted the evidence kept away from the public. 
Last September, Judge Smith decided that the DPS was right, and ordered the Dept. of Justice to release the evidence to him. "The court's purpose is to secure the evidence so that neither the parties to the pending civil litigation, the media, or the public will perceive that the government may have the opportunity to conceal, alter, or fail to reveal evidence," Smith wrote in his order. 
Federal marshals loaded up the evidence and took it back to Waco, where much of it is now stored in the basement of the federal courthouse. But now that the civil trial is essentially over, that hotly disputed evidence lies in a legal no-man's land similar to the one that existed when the DPS held the evidence. "We don't know what is supposed to happen to it now," said one federal official close to the matter. 
Under federal law, Smith is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act. Nor is there any precedent under which he could release the evidence. "I don't know that anyone has an answer to that question," says James Brannon. Judge Smith "may just give it all back to the government," Brannon says. 
As long as Smith keeps the evidence, there will be no discussion of the shooting of Michael Schroeder, a Davidian who was killed outside the compound by ATF agents on Feb. 28, 1993, several hours after the primary gun battle ended. Schroeder's corpse lay where it fell for four days before it was examined by Texas Rangers. Ballistics tests on the guns used by the ATF agents who shot him have never been released. Nor have the interviews the Rangers did with the ATF agents. In addition, ATF agents have testified that they shot Schroeder at a distance of 100 yards with pistols. If that's true, why did Schroeder's corpse have two bullet holes in its head? The evidence now controlled by Smith includes a cap and hood that Schroeder was wearing when he died. Schroeder's mother, Sandy Connizzo, wants to have the cap examined by forensic experts to see if there is any powder residue on it. Schroeder, she says, "has been overlooked in this whole brouhaha of the investigations. He was just as much a part of Waco as any of the rest."
That article is 19 years old, and the circumstances may have changed, but I doubt it.

And of course those who have heard about the case in passing probably aren't familiar with the psychological tactics employed by the FBI against the Davidians. Shining lights through the windows, mooning them and flipping the middle finger, playing sounds of rabbits being killed, and Nancy Sinatra's These Boots Are Made for Walkin'. With behavior like this it's no wonder more of the Davidians didn't come out and ended up perishing in the flames.

Waco seemed like little more than a spectacle for the public—a sting to demonstrate a government agency's usefulness, as well a procuring more funds. But of course it backfired and was an embarrassment.

While it's hard to verify some of the claims made by either documentary without extensive research, much of the congressional investigation footage and the FLIR (forward-looking infrared) footage very convincingly portrays many of the holes in the official narrative. The FLIR footage in particular proves the FBI to be liars regarding the "We didn't fire a shot" narrative, for there are many flashes that are obviously not natural bright spots or reflections and can only be gun fire—not to mention the multiple Davidians who were shot, sans smoke inhalation.

Monday, May 13, 2019

Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century

Why is it that when Japan, Europe, and other developed parts of the world were continuing to use, expand upon, and rebuild their public transit systems, the U.S. instead dismantled theirs in favor of highways and freeway systems, busses, and automobiles; crowded, bumper-to-bumper streets, stalling, inching forward at a snail's pace; dirtying the air with copious amounts of exhaust and clogging the horizon with visible smog?

In just under an hour, the documentary gives the details to piece together a large, complex web of industries tirelessly lobbying for the inefficient system we now have—the worst public transit system of the developed world. It's somewhat dated because it's 1996, and already a lot of things have changed, but it's a very worthwhile look at a great shaping force of the U.S.

There's of course nothing wrong with having cars, but, as one of the commentators in the film said, it's best for cars, busses, etc. to supplement public transit, otherwise vast tracts roads crisscross, growing by the day, a new lane one year, another the next, cutting through the hearts of the cities, the entire country itself, like clogged arteries.

With the rail system, the trolleys (or streetcars; trams in Europe) had their own dedicated rail and they sped by quickly, and the pollution was significantly cut because they used electricity instead of gas like the automobiles. Early on, most people couldn't afford a car, and busses weren't a popular alternative.

The earliest point covered was 1922, when, according to the documentary, only 1 in 10 Americans drove or owned an automobile.

General Motors' (GM) Alfred P. Sloan saw an opportunity to expand the auto industry and amass a fortune. His goal was to motorize the entire country. By forcing the bus to become more prevalent than the streetcar, the assumption was the consumers would save up to buy a car in lieu of lagging around in filthy busses, which were slow and malodorous.

GM purchased Omnibus and Yellow Coach, the largest bus operating company and bus production company, respectively.

They started with Manhattan, dismantling the rail system in the span of a decade (1926-1936).

Their success in New York set a sort of perceived standard, and they pressured the entire country with a vigorous ad campaign, suggesting moving away from rail in favor of busses was preferable. In truth, the rail system was popular and the busing system was not.

But what the people prefer is rarely upheld for long. The most powerful and monied corporations conspire and lobby and deceive the public.

In 1936, National City Lines (NCL) was founded. They would dominate city transportation, and while they had no apparent connection to GM, their director of operations came from Yellow Coach, and members of the board came from Greyhound (founded and controlled by GM). Roy Fitzgerald, who came from a humble background, became the face of NCL.

Standard Oil, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Firestone Tires would back GM in this endeavor.

So NCL reduced the amount of miles and service offered by streetcars and sold off integral properties. Once it becomes less available, it becomes less convenient, and commuters turn to other transportation, even if they're not the most savory choices.

The DOJ opened up anti-trust investigations, but these did little to curb the growth and influence of GM and its associated industries, even though they were found guilty.

Because bussing became more ubiquitous every year, more people bought cars. Furthermore, the postwar economy was in good shape and returning soldiers had extra money, so many of them bought a car. As time went on, fewer people could afford to live without a car because of suburbanization and the decline of public transit, and cars became more affordable because of the large supply, further incentivizing their purchase.

Suburbanization is in many ways connected to the quality of public transit. Once the city became flooded with cars, greater pollution and noise, etc, cities became less desirable and those with greater income would often move to the suburbs. Of course being outside of the city resulted in more gas being used, more pollution, often long commutes, where it seems one might spend a sizable chunk of his day in traffic. Undoubtedly those who developed the suburbs were likely in bed with GM and its associates, for it seems a favorable and lucrative pairing.

At this point in time, the trolley system was in need of repair. While Europe and Japan rebuilt, GM used the Highway Lobby, an umbrella of organizations associated with motorization. Millions were spent in their advocacy of highways.

But their influence only grew as Eisenhower appointed Charles Wilson, the GM president of the time, as the Secretary of Defense. Francis Dupont, a key figure in the construction of the interstate system, became head of the Federal Highway Administration. Both had influence over the president and were given approval for what led to the Interstate Highway System.

Eisenhower is most famously associated with his warning about the military-industrial complex (MIC), but he did a great deal to maintain and solidify what he cautioned against. The pitch for freeways was partially to bolster national security, and ever since then, the position of the automobile industry within the MIC was stronger than ever. Seeing as it was the cold war era and the time of the second Red Scare, a vast system of freeways and highways connecting all the cities and states was probably an easy sell. This is not to say that it necessarily was anything more than a corporate interest however—but it's usefulness to national security was at least part of the pitch.

As they aptly state (paraphrased): "To pay for the interstate, congress created the Highway Trust Fund with money from the gasoline tax. This fund could only be used to build more highways. More highways meant more driving. More driving meant more taxes. And the taxes would go toward more roads."

But no matter how preferable or efficient the rail system (or the updated light rail system or other systems) might be in comparison, it is difficult and in many ways inefficient to strip down the system that is in place, and the Highway Lobby is still strong. Perhaps we will eventually incorporate more public transit to offset pollution and provide a steady and reliable alternative to automobiles and a greater balance, but the system we have been forced into will flourish for a long time to come.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Oklahoma City Bombing as told by the FBI and the $PLC

Going into watching this, I hadn't realized this was a PBS documentary.

If you were wanting to learn about the Oklahoma City Bombing (OKCB), then you might be disappointed, because they quickly transition to talking about the Aryan Nation at the beginning. Then they talk about The Order (Bob Mathews). 

Probably half the film is spent going over Ruby Ridge and Waco. Of course I fully understand SOME screen time for the two events, briefly, because these were alleged to be the catalysts for McVeigh's actions. 

Considering The Order and the Aryan Nation have basically nothing to do with OKCB, you can definitely expect there is something awry going on, and the tagline on the cover—"A CAUTIONARY TALE OF HATE IN AMERICA"—reveals the propaganda that will follow.

In other words, typical PBS.

The sad story is told by victims and people who lost loved ones. But any insight by "experts" is from the perspective of the FBI and the $PLC. You might question why that's an issue. I think it's personally reasonable to interview people from each organization. 

But both are unwilling to stray from the official narrative and completely gloss over many disturbing details. The FBI regularly made attempts to cover the story up. John Doe No. 2 was thrown out despite ample eyewitness testimony of many people involved who were not Nichols or Fortier. ARA, Elohim City, Andy Strassmeir, Terrence Yeakey, Guthrie, Trentadue, Carol Howe, etc, never get a single mention. 

John Doe No. 2 is quickly passed over because ONE witness might have mistook the man McVeigh was with with Todd Bunting:

While they do bear a resemblance, there were actually multiple sketches of John Doe No. 2 and many, many eyewitnesses. There's also no consideration of how different the hats are, nor how common these two hats might be. It's highly disingenuous to hand wave away the possibility of others being involved JUST because of Bunting.

Why don't they want to mention Elohim City? It would seem like an apt segue for a PBS film... what with their white separatist/nationalist beliefs—some could be called neo-nazis and some of them are prone to violence (ARA had members staying at Elohim city, for example; in fact, going back to Aryan Nations... they actually did have some members staying in Elohim City, and while I have no idea who or when these people might have been there, this would have been an effective way to justify and tie in the Aryan Nations footage at the beginning, which makes it even more suspicious). 

The reason they don't mention it is because they don't want to link Tim McVeigh to Elohim City. Why? Because both the FBI and $PLC had informants in Elohim City, which could imply foreknowledge or a sting gone wrong or some greater plot beyond the lone bomber theory.

Now, I understand, some people think the evidence linking McVeigh to Elohim City is not strong enough. Fair enough. My problem with this is that Elohim City has a far better connection to the OKCB case than The Order or the Aryan Nation, and including the latter two over Elohim City is suspicious. If they stuck to JUST the OKCB case, then I'd let it slide, but you'd think PBS, a media outlet always itching to demonize any white nationalist movement, would be eager to link Elohim City to McVeigh.

Speaking of $PLC, Mark Potok makes far too many appearances.

Look at that anti-white discount George Lucas.

And here is a larger image with better quality (and European demographic change).  It's not clear to me what "Anti-Latino" refers to—perhaps anti-immigration groups.

So here's an example of one of the "experts" used in the documentary. Not only does he demonize any group that likes guns, is nationalist, or separatist, but it appears he probably celebrates the declining white percentage in all of these countries. There's one other person from the $PLC and several others who focus on "hate."

So Aryan Nations has a connection to Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge). An informant within Aryan Nations pressures Randy Weaver into shortening the barrel of a shotgun to where it will be illegal, thus entrapping him. Not only do government plants listen in and inform on people, they also often stoke the fire.

Then agents in military fatigues, waving rifles around, go to his cabin and a shootout ensues. Yes, he probably should have showed up for his court date or given up in this standoff, but he was acquitted of all crimes except failure to appear to court. The deaths associated with Ruby Ridge were ruled as self defense. His son, wife, and an agent died. It was a terrible embarrassment for the government.

Next was Waco. Another embarrassment for the government, and much more lethal. 82 people died in total, including many children. For the most part, PBS showed how badly the ATF and FBI handled this case. But it's hard to make any excuses for the government, that frequently seemed willing to escalate needlessly rather than deescalate. 

The bit of fire shown behind the tank in the footage shown is not indicative of the FBI starting the fire, however, many alleged that pyrotechnic rounds were fired into the windows at key places in the compound (CS gas was everywhere and highly flammable).

It seems pretty clear the FBI was responsible for the fire. Even if the FBI didn't start the fire, they behaved recklessly and irresponsibly, and showed no regard for the people inside the Branch Davidian compound. Unloading tear gas and rifle fire at a building with children in it? Not allowing the fire trucks to put the fire out? Letting the compound and much of the evidence burn? Inexcusable. 

And it should also be stated that the Branch Davidians LET the ATF pull away when they called a ceasefire and retreated. They could have slaughtered the ATF at that point, but they let them retreat.

The filmmakers seem willing to lick the wounds of the FBI, but they were set on raiding the compound. Koresh offered an inspection, and if they had to detain Koresh, they could have simply nabbed him when he went to town, or tried a less hostile approach. And with the way they used the audio clips, they tried to make it sound like the Branch Davidians tried to commit suicide via fire, exonerating the FBI of possibly having inadvertently or deliberately starting the fire. 

Aside from these two events serving as catalysts, McVeigh is camped out near the Branch Davidian compound, along with many others who are sympathetic, finally connecting him to the narrative and focusing on OKCB. 

Some of the footage is good, but it's just the official narrative. Nothing too interesting. You won't learn anything here about OKCB that isn't on Wikipedia. 

They go on to hand wave away "conspiracy theories" and go with the lone bomber theory—except, no they don't. They connect his act of terror with white supremacy, neo-nazis, and the militia movement, as well as gun shows. 

"The idea that there is no connection to this event and the white supremacist movement is patently false," said one of the interviewers toward the end.

"According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, more than 500 militant white supremacist groups are currently active in the United States." 

Like anyone should take what the $PLC says seriously. They are biased, never do anything but slander others, and have no credibility. While it's true that some of the organizations or people they have brought attention to are violent, many of them are non-violent.

Here is an example of a terrorist attack motivated by the rhetoric of the $PLC:

Corkins -- who had chosen the research council as his target after finding it listed as an anti-gay group on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center -- had planned to stride into the building and open fire on the people inside in an effort to kill as many as possible, he told investigators, according to the court documents. 
If he'd been successful and escaped, his plan was to go to another conservative group to continue the attack, prosecutors said. A handwritten list naming three other groups he planned to attack was found among his belongings, prosecutors said.
Now, I get it, you might say someone like Dylann Roof is motivated by the rhetoric of sites like Stormfront. But Stormfront is a message board filled with many people who possess different views. It's a site for dissidents to discuss a variety of topics. It's not an authoritative site with any real power. The $PLC, on the other hand, has a lot of money behind it, and they're an informal wing of the FBI's intelligence gathering network. Many mainstream news sites quote them as an authoritative source—too many to name! When we're talking about actual tangible power, Stormfront and other similar sites are on the fringes, while the $PLC is a mainstream force of defamation that is seen as having credibility because of the authoritative pedestal mainstream media outlets place it upon.

Key members have recently been fired and/or resigned with what appears to be some kind of scandal in the works. So they might be breathing their last dying gasps at this point. Perhaps they will recover from this. Either way, they've done incredible amount of harm to the U.S. political discourse. 

They try to tie McVeigh's actions to "white supremacy" of the past and hitherto. Yet they don't seem to think he has any connections to a larger web of "white supremacists" or anyone else. There's no conspiracy, according to one of the commentators. Evidently they believe such movements were a big influence on him. Is McVeigh even a white supremacist? The term white supremacist is also outdated and hardly applies to anyone. Most people lumped into being white supremacists are simply immigration restrictionists, nationalists, or separatists. Wishing to maintain homogeneity or be around similar people is somehow "supremacist." 

Randy Weaver was a white nationalist, but he didn't have a criminal record before the FBI tried to pull a fast one on him, and Ruby Ridge wouldn't even be part of history if not for their entrapment. Waco didn't have anything to do with "white supremacy."  Maybe McVeigh was a "white supremacist" or whatever PBS wants to call him, but this seemed very specifically an anti-government action in response to Ruby Ridge and Waco—and a lot of people who aren't in "white supremacist" circles were appalled by those two events. 

Essentially, PBS is hoping you'll equate "white supremacy" with any pro-white beliefs. One must remember: just because a person is labeled as a "white supremacist," or even is one, does not mean a crime is motivated by the ideology they hold. It could be, but there are other possibilities.

You'd think they could tell the story of the OKCB without trying to tie the case to white nationalism or white separatism. As is typical with the $PLC and PBS, the propaganda is really just a thinly veiled attack on whites in general, especially those acting in their own interests. Violent "white supremacist" boogiemen who commit terrorist attacks are a very small minority. High crime areas filled with blacks, like Detroit or Chicago, result in FAR more deaths per year than any "white supremacists." 

Gangs, which are HIGHLY disproportionately black and hispanic, are responsible for an enormous amount of crime, and without them, we'd be about on par with much of Europe in terms of crime. So why does the $PLC spend so much time worrying about "white supremacists" instead of gangs? 

Because they're anti-white, and they only care about demonizing whites into being afraid to speak out in pursuit of their own interests (blacks and other groups can advocate for their own specific interests; whites can't without being demonized, and they're quickly becoming a plurality, and not long after that, probably a minority). 

And then, one must ask, why are there "white supremacists" in the first place? Probably because of forced non-white immigration (which was not the norm before 1965), forced integration, no freedom of association, affirmative action, white flight, anti-white messages in media, etc. When you make large sweeping changes and force people together who simply don't get along, you should expect some backlash. 

And they have the gall to bring on someone like Potok, who not only regularly advocates against the interests of whites, but gleefully keeps a record of declining white demographics on his office wall. The $PLC is one of the sources of the problem rather than a cure to "hate." 

The audio quality is very poor, but this gives some further insight on what kind of organization the $PLC is, and they not only admit the shifting demographics they advocate for are a large part of the reason for existing "hate" groups or any rise of said groups. She even says that it's been in planning for a long while, with the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Some Music

Stars of the Lid — The Tired Sounds of Stars of the Lid 

One of the classic ambient albums. A varied sound with each track, and it doesn't have the nauseating and generic, repetitive wall of sound schtick going on.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor — F♯ A♯ ∞

The car's on fire and there's no driver at the wheel
And the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides
And a dark wind blows

The government is corrupt
And we're on so many drugs
With the radio on and the curtains drawn

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine
And the machine is bleeding to death

The sun has fallen down
And the billboards are all leering
And the flags are all dead at the top of their poles

It went like this:

The buildings tumbled in on themselves
Mothers clutching babies picked through the rubble
And pulled out their hair

The skyline was beautiful on fire
All twisted metal stretching upwards
Everything washed in a thin orange haze

I said: "Kiss me, you're beautiful -
These are truly the last days"

You grabbed my hand and we fell into it
Like a daydream or a fever

We woke up one morning and fell a little further down -
For sure it's the valley of death

I open up my wallet
And it's full of blood

A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995

The title of the documentary, A Noble Lie, is an idea in political science birthed from interpretations and/or mistranslations of Plato’s Republic, which conventionally refers to a falsehood or myth propagated by the elite to maintain social harmony or to promote a particular plan of action. For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was used to curry favor for the Vietnam war. Another example would be that of the Oklahoma City Bombing (OKCB), which involved an apparent ANFO bomb detonating half of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on the morning of April 19, 1995. 168 people died, including 19 children within the daycare. The apparent reason for the bombing, according to Timothy McVeigh, who perpetrated the attack, was his disdain for the government due to their poor handling of the Ruby Ridge and Waco sieges. The day chosen for the bombing was the second anniversary of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. McVeigh was eventually given the death penalty, and co-conspirator Terry Nichols received a life sentence. The Fortier couple was also charged for their connection to the bombing.
Controversy enveloped the case over the years because of witness accounts that didn’t match up with the official narrative, which included sightings of a John Doe No. 2—perhaps even multiple John Doe No. 2s; additionally, the case had troubling links to various other people, such as Andy Strassmeier and the Aryan Republican Army (ARA), many of whom either had suspected or confirmed intelligence agency connections. Even more troubling, over the course of the investigation, strange “suicides” further eroded the credibility of the official narrative and suggested a government coverup. The documentary includes many key witnesses and researchers, an ample amount of archival and new footage, and some official documents and articles to add credence, though it still leaves many unanswered questions and eschews a lot of important details; certain claims lack adequate sourcing and other information that should be included is omitted or obfuscated—sometimes in a disingenuous manner; however, it is so far probably the best introduction I’ve seen to the case, which skillfully weaves a coherent narrative out of the confusing details of one of the most fascinating cases of domestic terrorism in the U.S. In many ways, the event is a quintessential example of the noble lie, and only by examining this incident and others throughout history, can we ever hope to erode the veil drawn before us and convince the public of the need for government reform. 
There are many troubling aspects to the case that suggests foreknowledge among the different alphabet soup agencies. Specifically the ATF, though the CIA, FBI, and even the non-governmental organization $PLC have ties to the case. The ATF had their Oklahoma branch within the Murrah building, but none of them were killed, despite the high body count. This leads to the question of whether they were even there or not. 
There were some witness accounts that suggested they may not have been. A man on KFOR gives an account where he called to inquire ATF agents about the condition of his wife, but the person who answered tells him that they were currently in debriefing and unhurt because they were tipped off by their pagers not to come to work that morning. Two ATF agents, Luke Franey and Alex McCauley, gave some suspicious stories about being present that day, at least that is how the filmmakers of A Noble Lie present it; McCauley’s story does seem contradicted by the elevator technician. But one issue they don’t address at all is that Franey lists where many other ATF agents were and claims that three other agents were in the building, a few of which were wounded enough to be hospitalized:

The Oklahoma City bombing claimed 168 lives, but none of them was lost in the ATF office. Behenna asked Franey where each agent was that morning - apparently addressing earlier claims that ATF agents knew the bombing would happen and made sure they weren't there. Franey listed where each absent employee was: Don Gillispie and Tim Kelly were in Ponca City, testifying in an arson trial; Delbert Canopp was on his way back from Ponca City; Karen Simpson was at the federal courthouse next door; Darrell Edwards was at home, talking on the phone to Franey - they both worked late the night before on an investigation. Bruce Anderson was on his way to a compliance inspection.He also testified that two of the five ATF employees in the office that morning were seriously injured. Agent Jim Staggs was hospitalized with serious head wounds. Agent Vernon Buster was badly hurt. Agent Alex McCauley, Franey's supervisor, fell five floors while in an elevator. Valerie Rowden, the office manager, was cut all over, Franey said.

Prior to the explosion Jane Graham saw two men in ATF jackets (usually not worn in the building—presumably this is just for investigation in the field) while heading to work. An affidavit from Tiffany Bible, a paramedic working that day, indicates that she asked an ATF agent on the scene after the explosion, and he said there weren’t any ATF in the building that day, and the attack was because of Waco. She also witness several ATF agents twenty minutes after the bombing in clean jumpsuits, which indicates that they were unlikely to have been within the vicinity of the blast, and despite not showing up for work (at least not in the building, anyway), they responded quickly. Of course these accounts conflict with the link above, and it’s possible there were some misunderstandings among the various people interviewed or referenced.

The ATF informant Carol Howe (possibly Viefhaus as well), who was placed in Elohim City, a neo-nazi or white separatist compound, admitted under oath that Andy Strassmeir had made threats about blowing up a federal building, and she scouted several federal buildings with Strassmeir and others—she divulged this information prior to the bombing, and later brought it to the attention of the public. However it’s not clear that her information specifically indicated a plot to blow up the Murrah building. Though there is a Guardian article that mentions ATF reports from Carol Howe:

“In the months leading up to the Oklahoma bombing, Carol filed a series of reports to the ATF. In one, she reported that Andy Strassmeir had declared, "It's time to go to war," and, "It's time to start bombing federal buildings." In another, she reported that Strassmeir had travelled to Oklahoma City to case the Murrah building as a potential target. In a third, she reported that Elohim City's patriarch, Reverend Robert Millar, preached a Holy War against the Federal Government, and suggested that April 19 might be a good day to start that war.” Immediately after the bombing, Carol Howe identified Timothy McVeigh as someone she saw walking through the Elohim City forests with Andy Strassmeir. She also testified that she overheard Dennis Mahon take a telephone call from "Tim Tuttle" - the alias McVeigh used. "Carol had a lot of boyfriends at Elohim City," said Dennis. "But she'd scare them off. You know. 'Hey! Let's make a bomb!' That kind of talk tends to scare guys away." Dennis paused. "Especially when they may actually be planning something."

There are also two separate accounts of Ernest Istook, a congressman, who says to one witness that they knew this was going to happen; and to another: we’ve known about a bomb threat since at least April 9th.
Now, any single piece of information here should be regarded with scrutiny, being that much of it is eyewitness accounts or not hard evidence, but when so many accounts seem to line up and suggest the same thing, some of them from more credible sources than others, it becomes stronger, perhaps even damning. Initially it appears the media and the government are looking to uncover the truth and are more transparent, but as the case unfolds, the government shifts to covering up information because it might suggest they had involvement or failed to act appropriately. 
Witnesses also reported seeing the Oklahoma County bomb disposal unit prior to the attack. 
On ABC a large truck with a trailer had bomb squad printed on it. Supposedly it was in use by a deputy to run routine errands. Other documents obtained by 20/20 show that someone called the executive secretariat’s office at the justice department in Washington and said the Murrah building had been bombed; however this was 24 minutes prior to any bombs going off. There was even an entire video dedicated to foreknowledge by 20/20’s Roger Charles, but federal agents prevented it from being shown in its entirety. 
But it’s not just the issue of foreknowledge that plagues the case, but also speculation about a John Doe No. 2. At first this enigmatic figure was part of the official narrative, but later was dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”, and investigators refused to believe the possibility of other suspects (Not counting Nichols or Fortier, neither of whom were ever thought to be John Doe No. 2). There are a few accounts about seeing at least one suspicious character other than McVeigh near the Ryder truck on the day of the bombing, retreating into a brown pickup.
In truth, it would appear McVeigh wouldn’t necessarily need someone else present on the day of the bombing, but the FBI is still unwilling to release the video footage from that day to confirm the suspicions of the public, nor was it used as part of the trial, which one would think is a highly relevant piece of information. KFOR released a reenactment where they said their unnamed source had watched the tapes and indicated another man with McVeigh in the Ryder truck before it exploded.

Tapes do exist, but like other pertinent information, the government is refusing to release it to the public. This only serves to fuel the flames of “conspiracy theories”. Just what is it the government feels they must hide?
Daina Bradley’s account might be questionable because she changed her story and her experience during the bombing was extremely traumatic, but there’s also Rodney Johnson (featured in A Noble Lie) and Morris John Kuper Jr. who saw McVeigh with another man prior to the bombing:

Also Mike Moroz, who gave directions (the directions were to the street which the building was on or near) to a man in a Ryder truck just 30 minutes before the bombing. He also saw another person in the Ryder truck.

In the days before the bombing Tim McVeigh was seen making preparations with other suspects. Not Nichols or Fortier, but others who were unknown suspects.

The documentary is somewhat unclear on the details concerning the gas station, but McVeigh was seen by Mike Nations on the phone with a man who had shoulder length hair. The store clerk (not certain if this coincides with Nations’s account) reported McVeigh purchased fuel for a ryder truck 2 days before the bombing and a suspect was accompanying him.
Though it was said he never scouted inside the Murrah building a secret service investigator reported seeing him inside the Murrah building with a second suspect. two white males came into the U.S. Customs office inquiring about a job
The official narrative alleges that he rented the truck alone in Junction City, Kansas on April 17 (seems to be confirmed by the VIN number from the Ryder truck found after the bombing. McVeigh and Nichols supposedly constructed the bomb on April 18.
Witnesses indicate a Ryder truck was at Geary Lake before the 17th. James Sergeant says he saw it as early as April 11. Salon’s account of this is interesting:

“A more reasonable explanation for the construction of the bomb can be found in the testimony at Terry Nichols' trial. Charles Farley, a local sporting-goods rental shop worker, told the courtroom that he passed by Geary Lake at the time the bomb was being built, and saw not only the Ryder truck, a two-ton farm truck loaded with white bags of fertilizer and a car similar to McVeigh's getaway car, but at least five men working around the scene. "Initially, when I got to the gate, there was one individual standing at the back of the farm truck, at the back left corner of the farm truck," Farley testified. "I seen three individuals standing down between the Ryder truck and the brown car, one of them standing in the -- in the road just a little bit, one of them leaning against the front of the Ryder truck and the other one just kind of standing between them." Farley said he made to drive out of the area, pulling just beyond a gate nearby. "As soon as I was out, I seen an individual walking alongside of the farm truck. He was probably at the cab when I first seen him. And I was really going slow. I mean, I was just creeping. And I was going to roll the window down and ask him if he needed some help. And -- [he] give me kind of a dirty look and I decided, well, if you're going to be that way, me too, and I'm just going to leave; so I just drove away." Farley said he couldn't identify any of the other men, but he got a clear view of the man who shot him a look. Nichols' defense attorneys handed him a photo of a gray-bearded man, and Farley said it was the man. The Rocky Mountain News later tracked down the identity of the man in the photo and found it was a 60-something member of a local Kansas citizens' militia group named Morris Wilson. Strangely, prosecutors did not attempt to rebut much of Farley's testimony, which came on the last full day of defense testimony. It proved a crucial error in judgment. The jury convicted Nichols, but only of the lesser crime of taking part in the conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter, eschewing the murder and bombing charges that would have brought him the death penalty. Several of the jurors later said that Farley's testimony had convinced them that there was a wider conspiracy.”

Adding corroboration to Farley’s account is the fact that Geary Lake was cited as the location where McVeigh and Nichols supposedly built the bomb on April 18. McVeigh insists it was just he and Nichols who worked on the bomb. But why is McVeigh’s testimony more credible than Farley’s? One can certainly find many cases where someone convicted of a crime lies or changes his story. The same article also contends (along with numerous other sources) that Nichols had the intent of naming other people who may have been involved but was not encouraged (or perhaps allowed) to do so. Morris Wilson was also the man who was spotted by Farley, a member of a Kansas militia, and it’s known that McVeigh was involved in many militias during his travels, as well as gun shows. 
McVeigh stayed at dreamland hotel right outside Fort Riley, Kansas. witnesses said he was not alone, and the Ryder truck was there for days before the FBI insists it was purchased. Since there are witnesses indicating the Ryder truck was purchased on the 17th, and a VIN number found at the Murrah building, this suggests there were two Ryder trucks, the other one unaccounted for as to its origin—it was perhaps used for the transportation of materials for the bomb(s), but this element is unclear.
The maid at dreamland saw McVeigh with his companion and the Ryder truck. and she said the sketch of John Doe No. 2 looks just like McVeigh’s companion.
Jannie Coverdale went to Elliots’s Body Shop and asked Elliott, the owner, what happened the day Tim rented the truck. And he asked if she meant the day Tim and his friend came. We know Tim McVeigh was seen at the store by witnesses, and this is also confirmed because he rented the truck, signing his name as Robert Kling, and the VIN number for the truck he rented corresponded to the VIN number found at the Murrah building.
There have been attempts to discredit the John Doe No. 2 theory because one person who said they saw Tim McVeigh was apparently confused or led to be confused.

“The FBI has maintained that coincidence is the best way to explain John Doe No. 2, whose character sketch was drawn mainly from the account of an eyewitness at the Junction City shop where the Ryder truck was rented. That witness, the FBI says, mixed up his recollections and mistakenly identified a man who came in the next day to rent a truck -- a 23-year-old soldier named Todd Bunting -- as an accomplice of McVeigh's. Bunting, who was cleared of any connection to the crime, vaguely resembled the composite drawing and wore clothes similar to those in the drawing, including a Carolina Panthers ball cap.”
Indeed, Bunting actually bears some similarity to the John Doe No. 2 sketch, especially with the hat:

However, there are multiple John Doe No. 2 sketches, and there is also Michael Brescia who looks very similar to John Doe No. 2. Brescia had an alibi for that day. Some will say there is enough information to rule Brescia out, while others believe his story is flimsy. However, that speculation aside, Kessinger isn’t the only person who saw someone with McVeigh that day. Here is some more information about Kessinger’s account, along with Beemer and Elliott being witnesses to the same incident:

“Mr. Kessinger has already conceded that he had made a mistake when he said the square-jawed man who came to be known as John Doe No. 2 had accompanied Mr. McVeigh. The man he described was actually Pvt. Todd Bunting of the Army, who rented a truck a day later and had no connection with the bombing.”
So McVeigh rented the truck on the 17th, and he’s alleged to have a companion. Todd Bunting rented a truck on the 18th. In his original account he said two men came in the building when he saw McVeigh, but he may have mixed up his memory when it came to the appearance of the second man with McVeigh, and Bunting the next day, since time had transpired.
“Speaking publicly for the first time, Mr. Kessinger said he was sitting in the back of the truck rental office, taking a break at about 4:15 P.M. on Monday, April 17, 1995, when he saw two men come into the shop. They stood at the counter and began speaking with Vicki Beemer, who handled the paperwork that day. 
“Mr. Kessinger noticed Mr. McVeigh, he said, because of something Mr. McVeigh said, which was not disclosed in court, and he watched the two men for about 10 minutes.”

Elliot, the boss of the body shop, also gives an account of another man who is clearly with McVeigh, saying he had a white hat with blue lightning bolt on the side:

On April 17, Mr. Elliott said, he walked into the rental office and ''saw Mr. Kling five feet away. I walked up to him and asked him again about insurance. Another person was standing there. I glanced at him.'' ''I walked between the two of them,'' Mr. Elliott recalled, when he went out to inspect the truck. The second man was shorter than Mr. McVeigh, Mr. Elliott said, but he can remember nothing else about the second man except his ''white hat with blue lightning bolts on the side.''
Elliot’s account is more similar to the sketch. The pattern resemble lightning bolts on the side, while the hat Bunting has clearly has a shark and waves. 

According to Washington Post:

“A former Elliott's employee, Vicki Beemer, testified earlier that two days before the bombing, McVeigh was accompanied by a second man. A nurse from Herington, Kan., told jurors that she saw a Hispanic-looking man riding with McVeigh in the passenger seat of a Ryder truck several days before the blast. Numerous others testified that they saw a man resembling the sketch of John Doe No. 2 in or near a Ryder truck in the days preceding the bombing.”

In the testimony Wednesday, Elliott described how FBI agents tried to persuade him he'd gotten confused, too. 
"They wanted me to change my mind that there was a second person there. And I wouldn't change my mind, he said. 
Elliott said he wasn't even at his shop the day the other men Bunting and his friend had rented a truck.

Some even argue that there weren’t 168 victims in the bombing, but rather 169, because even after the 168 were accounted for, an extra left leg was found after the building was demolished—this detail has never been explained and DNA tests have yet to reveal anything. While there is as of yet no way to confirm the identity of this mystery person, some speculate that it’s John Doe No. 2.
after the first day… it seemed as if a media coverup began and only one channel was reporting on the multiple suspects beyond McVeigh or Nichols, and the possibility of foreknowledge. Only KFOR reported on this aspect. NYT purchased KFOR the next year and several people were fired. Debbie Nakanashi and Jane Graham were trying to see senators in Washington about the case, but none of them would see them. Juror Hoppy Heidelberg was asking questions of his own. He served on the federal grand jury that was supposed to investigate the bombing. An investigative team from the American Society of Civil Engineers were not allowed on the site of the bombing. The defense lawyer of McVeigh visited the site one time, but was not allowed to view the crater. They were in a hurry to blow up the building. And demolished it on May 23, 1995.
OKCB trial lasted about 28 days (ANL documentary says 3 weeks, but it seems to be more from what I checked), and the jury deliberated for less than 24 hours before reaching a guilty verdict and sentencing McVeigh to death. This prevented an enormous amount of documentation from being presented at all. June 11, 2001: McVeigh is put to death by lethal injection and quickly cremated. An autopsy was not performed on his body, which is against the standard procedure for executed prisoners—and it was per McVeigh’s request. This oddity has led to theories about McVeigh possibly still being alive (while I have a hard time swallowing this—there actually is some more circumstantial evidence to build a case for this theory). Terry Nichols had a separate trial with the verdict of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. While Nichols was found guilty, the jury refused the death penalty based on the evidence they were presented. Fortier got about 10 years. 
It would see cut and dried from there. But there are many other details to be addressed: the strange suicides of Terrance Yeakey, Kenneth Trentadue, Alden Gillis Baker, and Richard Lee Guthrie. Given the details, it’s questionable if any of these were suicides at all. 
Terrance Yeakey is nearby when the bomb explodes and he rushes to the scene and is one of the first to arrive and pulls out several people, injuring himself in the process. Evidently he saw something strange inside of the building, specifically near the daycare. His ex-wife (strangely not featured in the documentary, though she has given many interviews on the subject) and family mentioned he was acting paranoid and was convinced the government were covering up certain details about the OKCB. 
He was going to take some files to a mini storage in El Reno, but was found dead the next day on the morning of May 08,1996, his body is found a mile in a half from the front gate of the Reno Penitentiary in a field. Cuts were found on the inside of both wrists, elbows and jugular veins. He was beaten, ligature marks were around on his neck, and handcuff marks were on his wrists. A small caliber bullet had passed through the temple and out of the cheek, with no powder burns. There was a bloody knife in the car and he apparently stabbed himself 13 times and cut himself many times. He was found half a mile from where his car was. The doors were locked, windows rolled up, and the keys were in the console. A bloody knife was in the glove box. His car and home had been broken into and vandalized prior. According to Don Browning, a former OKC police officer, no autopsy was performed. They did reports on the injuries but not an autopsy. No drugs or alcohol was in his system, and he never mentioned anything about being depressed. 
Kenneth Trentadue, who was arrested in San Diego for a parole violation and extradited to OKC allegedly committed suicide in his cell on August 21, 1995. The federal government didn’t want an autopsy done, but the state required it. The federal government attempted to have Kenny cremated. They ended up being required to send the body home to the Trentadues and they find that Kenneth’s throat was slit, and it’s very clear he was beaten and tortured. His skull was smashed in three places, the soles of his feet were beaten, bruises were on his arms. The crime scene photos and negatives disappear. The video camera supposedly malfunctioned. Alden Gillis Baker claimed to know something about Trentadue’s death and was willing to talk, but he ended up hanged to death in his cell. Strangely, he isn’t mentioned in the documentary, but spending only thirty seconds to a minute to cover Baker would have added a lot of weight to their coverage, especially considering his death was very suspicious, given that he was intending to provide information. 
A person anonymously called Jesse Trentadue, saying his brother was killed by the FBI and it was an interrogation gone bad. A case of mistaken identity. He fit the profile of people who were robbing banks to attack the federal government. 
Jesse Trentadue also alleged that he received a message from Tim McVeigh. “When i saw your brother’s picture, and i heard what happened to him, I wanted you to know that I think the FBI killed him because they thought he was Richard Lee Guthrie.”
Richard Lee Guthrie was part of a gang of criminals, called the ARA, who were robbing banks with the intention of funding anti-government activities and terrorism. It’s alleged that some of this money may have gone toward funding the OKCB. The government prefers to deny McVeigh has any connection to the ARA, however. Guthrie had a very similar appearance to Trentadue and both sported a dragon tattoo on their left forearm. Guthrie ended up dead in his cell by hanging on July 12, 1996. The following day he was supposed to have an interview with LA Times, and he said he intended to blow the lid on the OKCB case. Thus, it seems plausible that Jesse Trentadue’s assertion about the FBI having attempted to interrogate Kenneth Trentadue using torture, leading to his death, is likely. 
Again, this is a very important detail that isn’t included in the documentary—the only thing they mention is that Guthrie is in the ARA and looks similar to Kenneth Trentadue.
Peter Langan, a key member of the ARA, offered information connecting his co-conspirator to McVeigh, but the government refused. This indicates that Guthrie and other members of the ARA are indeed connected to McVeigh. Guthrie admits to having special information about OKCB, and Langan js admitting to a connection as well. Nichols isn’t provided the opportunity to divulge more details about extra people being involved, and some of the ARA members are connected to Elohim City, which was called twice (April 5th and April 17th) by McVeigh, asking for Andy Strassmeier. Josiah Stone gives an account of having met McVeigh at Elohim City. Andy Strassmeir was reported as wanting to bomb federal buildings and they scouted several buildings. The FBI, ATF, and $PLC had informants within Elohim City. A potential reason that the government would want to avoid the involvement of people other than McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier, is because some people who were involved were likely informants or agents who infiltrated Elohim City. Most of this can be determined from FBI documents, some of which are shown in the documentary (though unfortunately redactions are common so it’s difficult to get the full picture). 

In Tulsa at Lady Godiva’s, one stripper named Shawn Tea Farrens said McVeigh and Strassmeier and others had come in a few days before the bombing. The Ryder truck was parked in the parking lot. There is an account of some of the strippers speaking with McVeigh in a tape seized by the FBI.

Strassmeier was a german intelligence officer. After the bombing he was taken out of the country by a former CIA operative and back to Germany. He was smuggled through Mexico to Germany. And he was never questioned about any possible involvement until he was back in Germany. Strassmeier’s roommate in Elohim City is Brescia, a member of the ARA and convicted of bank robbery.
So to add to the idea of informants from multiple agencies being embedded within Elohim City… Patcon—or Patriot Conspiracy—is an operation the FBI had in place since 1991, and it involved the infiltration of militia, neo-nazi, white separatist, and dissident groups—essentially any group the FBI believed might be a threat to the government. Waco and Ruby Ridge were Patcon operations, and it’s suspected that OKCB or Elohim City was as well. Of course, after the bad publicity generated by Waco and Ruby Ridge, the feds were likely taciturn about anything close to a big scale raid. Because of elements of foreknowledge and all of the strange coverups, it would appear that OKCB may have been a government sting gone bad. For example, McVeigh was supposed to arrive at a certain time and government agents would bust him before he could detonate the explosives—or they were supposed to catch him somewhere along the way before the Murrah building. Why would the government do this? They perform sting operations all the time. Sometimes they catch people breaking the law of their own accord, but there are many accounts of the FBI instigating criminal behavior once they have infiltrated a group. Successful sting operations increase their funds and justify their existence.
The documentary even suggests the idea of McVeigh being sheepdipped, meaning he took all the official measures to quit the military, but he remained employed by the government—some kind of special ops or CIA. Then he essentially becomes a new person, heavily involved in the militia movement. An interesting read that prefers some support to this notion are his letters to his sister, and his family describe details different than the narrative of “McVeigh dropped out of the military because he didn’t make the cut for special forces. If this is so, then he could have been a government agent who decided to turn against the government. Or perhaps not, but even over two decades later there are still many puzzling questions the government glosses over, and none of the tapes are released.
Yes, McVeigh would deny all of this—but, again, there is no reason to believe McVeigh over any other witnesses. There are many reasons he might lie. To protect his family. To protect the people at Elohim City or others. After all, he had Nichols rob Roger Moore in Arkansas; this was allegedly to give Moore an alibi.
There are some issues with the documentary, but I suspect they also may have information from documents unavailable to the public that makes some of their claims difficult to confirm. They did use information from documents in the possession of Stephen Jones (McVeigh’s lawyer). Some material covered in the documentary that I didn’t speak of were the analyses of the bombing and comparisons to other similar bombs. And, yes, while I did try to provide some sources, I’m not certain of the veracity of all of them, and I didn’t want to take the time to research every claim made in the documentary simply for the sake of this blog post. I plan on researching the case further and making some more posts and likely some videos on the subject. I’ll be taking a look at the PBS documentary on the OKCB next.