Bazurin somehow makes a direct line between infiltration of the movements by the "three letter" agencies and the assumption that the official narrative MUST therefore be tainted, and that the Capitol Hill events were "obviously" not what they had been "portrayed" to be. Those assumptions are thin thin thin...
a) in general, potentially dangerous groups are infiltrated - whether by law enforcement or a "three letter agency" - for surveillance purposes (which can certainly be condemned). That does not equate to them DIRECTING operations of those groups.
B) contrary to revisionist history, Capitol Hill events have not been "portrayed" as worse than they were by "three letter" agencies. We ALL saw the horrifying violence in real time, and we've ALL heard the unvarnished pride and intentionality the participants felt in their actions, through their own selfie movies and social media posts.
a) in general, potentially dangerous groups are infiltrated - whether by law enforcement or a "three letter agency" - for surveillance purposes (which can certainly be condemned). That does not equate to them DIRECTING operations of those groups.
B) contrary to revisionist history, Capitol Hill events have not been "portrayed" as worse than they were by "three letter" agencies. We ALL saw the horrifying violence in real time, and we've ALL heard the unvarnished pride and intentionality the participants felt in their actions, through their own selfie movies and social media posts.