Government Agents Have Flooded the Freedom Movement

in #finallyfreeamerica7 years ago (edited)

spying-binoculars.jpg

Government Agents Have Flooded the Freedom Movement

Through the Snowden leaks and others we’ve been made aware that governments have been monitoring all of our online interactions for years (1) usually with the help of the very sites who claim to keep our information safe(2). And we know of the old FBI program COINTELPRO(3) which sought to infiltrate, derail, radicalize, and discredit political organizations throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s. But is there a modern version of COINTELPRO, armed with digital technologies that weren’t available in the 60s? Let’s take a look at what we know.

In 2014, the Snowden leaks revealed the existence of a secret British Intelligence unit (with involvement from the NSA) known as JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group.)(4) The scope of JTRIG's mission includes using "dirty tricks" to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation, and shutting down their communications. The slides from the same leak also disclose the deployment of "honey traps" of a sexual nature by British intelligence agents.(5)

Have we seen activists in the freedom movement attacking other activists over the last few years over a perceived sexual wrongdoing with dubious evidence, at best? Of course we have. More than once.

Consider this quote(6): “Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.”

To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document:

Discredit.png

Any of us who have been involved with the freedom movement for a number of years have seen these very scenarios play out at least a couple of times. Coincidence? I seriously doubt it.

The main tactic used is to infiltrate groups, identify differences of opinions in those groups, cause fractures, and then watch as the groups start attacking one another instead of their common enemy.

Exploiting Fracture Points.png

Does any of this sound familiar to anyone? If so, congratulations! We’ve all been bamboozled in one way or another.

The Divide and Conquer technique has been used since time immemorial by states to keep the people from realizing where the true power lies: with the people. So let’s look at what the powerful say about how best to keep us all divided and conquered.

The 2011 STRATFOR leak(7) included information about corporate strategies to neutralize activist and community movements. Essentially, STRATFOR advocates dividing movements into four character types: radicals, idealists, realists, and opportunists. These camps can then be dealt with summarily:

First, isolate the radicals.

Second, “cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming realists.

And finally, co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.
(Opportunists just go with wherever the biggest benefit is to them.)

This is how movements are neutralized: those who should be allies are divided, infighting becomes rampant, and paranoia rules the roost. To combat these strategies, we must understand the danger they represent and how to counter them.

There is only one way to combat these strategies: UNITY.

The only way we will defeat statism is by standing together no matter what. We’re going to have differences of opinions on the aesthetics of a particular thing. We’re going to have personality conflicts. We’re going to have break-ups, and make-ups, and fuck-ups. But we have to stand together in the spirit of unity.

So the next time you hear an activist attacking another for doing things differently than they would do, or asking the same questions over and over again while refusing to accept the answer provided, or just generally trying to sow discord within the movement instead of fighting the actual enemy - just remind them that the only way we can defeat statism is by uniting.

Don’t fall victim to the divide and conquer tactics. It’s bad enough to be an agent; it’s worse to do their work for them unpaid and unknowingly.

Gambits for Deception.png

  1. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22469304-snowden-docs-reveal-british-spies-snooped-on-youtube-and-facebook?lite

  2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/03/28/the-facebook-scandal-how-many-cockroaches-are-there/#21663b1f3ea2

  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group

  5. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/exclusive-snowden-docs-show-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091

  6. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

  7. http://occupywallstreet.net/story/stratfor’s-strategies-radicals-v-realists

*I borrowed heavily from a bunch of articles on this post.

Sort:  

Those "Gambits for Deception" remind me a lot of the constant calls for language control and change from the Kokesh camp, and the endless accusations aimed at others of being "divisive" for asking honest questions.

It is also strange to me that Kokesh directly implies other libertarians, such as @larkenrose, for example, are "cointel pro." Why is such accusation necessary? Is there something to hide? Is it a projection? All questions that can fairly be asked.

Calls for unity are also often massive gambits for deception.

It seems strange for a self-proclaimed "voluntaryist anarchist" to morally shame individuals for not being political, for using the term "anarchist," and for asking honest questions.

Another great cover up for disinformation elements in the "movement" would be to project these accusations outward and call for "unity."

You have got to be joking. It is you who is throwing hurdles into the paths of those of us who are choosing to actually fight the political system instead of just ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

^ There it is again. The “utopian” “ignoring” thing.

Adam and I already dealt with this one in our discussion/debate. Asserting that building alternative systems and not supporting a violence-based system is “doing nothing” or “hoping it goes away” always strikes me as such a weird perspective.

I guess politicking is just another man’s “hoping it goes away” then, by that standard.

Refusing to be involved with the political system is implicit support for the status quo. The statists don’t want non-statists involved. That way they can just keep voting for themselves and claiming “consent.”

When non-statists are involved in the political system it is explicit discontent for the status quo. Look, nobody is telling you to vote for statists, or to stop growing your own food, or to stop creating alternative systems. Do all of those things! And also be involved with the political process. Fight them at every opportunity.

Refusing to be involved with the political system is implicit support for the status quo.

With the political system as the status quo, this is one of the most logically self-detonating statements one could make.

The old parties are the status quo. Someone running on the platform of dissolving the system is not.

Adam has said that even if there were a 90% majority of anarchists united in non-compliance, the entrenched 10% of the state would still point guns and keep the state in existence.

Why is it that he expects a majority of people involved in political action not to have those same guns pointed at them?

The status quo political system (which Adam will use) will not end itself by its own mechanisms. It is an immoral system built and dependent upon violence. But they will magically let him win and dissolve the Fed?

Fight the political system from within it? No, don't ignore it but do walk away. We are in the middle of doing that for the banking system, right? Banks are the real government too.

There's no hope in changing the system from within it. Then we have the walk away option or the bloody revolution option. I prefer the walking away option for now.

The difference is, the banks don't own a monopoly on violence. They don't break your door down and flashbang your family. Creating alternate systems is what it's all about, but refusing to be involved in the political system is precisely what they want you to do.

This is how movements are neutralized: those who should be allies are divided, infighting becomes rampant, and paranoia rules the roost. To combat these strategies, we must understand the danger they represent and how to counter them.

I respectfully suggest you're looking at the situation from the wrong elevation. We are fighting for something at a much higher level than the group or movement or political party. As a former Intel Analyst in the Army and person fully aware of how deep the rabbit hole is, I tell everyone who'll listen to operate as if there are spies and infiltrators everywhere.

When you operate with that assumption, you will drive forward towards the objective regardless of any obstacle. There is no way to divide and conquer in other words. We should not operate on a group or movement level. When we do that, we allow the tactic you are writing about to be effective. Don't operate in that way then.

Instead, operate with the end objective in mind at all times and regardless of the personal or group consequences. Every single individual does this, and then the people working in that way towards their combined goal can never be stopped. The only way to stop them would be to kill them all.

Also, as a PI I look for inconsistencies. I recommend everyone watch for inconsistencies. By inconsistencies I mean to look for people's actions not matching their words. Are they taking actions that are consistent with the end objective of maximizing individual liberty or not? Are they working towards the same end goal as me or not?

People can lie and fake it for years. Trust me. I've seen it happen and have been a victim to such people. If you continually and repeatedly verify people though, eventually you'll see cracks in their facade. You will begin to see minor inconsistencies. The common problem there though is the more close you are to the person, the more intimate you are with them, the less likely you are to pay attention to those inconsistencies.

I see inconsistencies in people who call themselves my friend. Shall I ignore those inconsistencies? No, absolutely not. I will not. Why? The objective I have is worth any price, remember? I will not focus on unity over objective. I will not ignore inconsistencies for a supposedly "greater good." If a person is being inconsistent, they should be called out immediately once that inconsistency is recognized.

We want to win, right? How can we win through a false unity? Never forget what Lenin once said. "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." How do you know when that is happening? You see inconsistencies in the people attempting to move to positions of leadership. That's how you do it. No individual or group should be excluded from the process either. Trust but always and repeatedly verify. That is how we drive forward, step by step if need be, towards our objective.

Individual liberty is worth that price too. We must be vigilant. Asking to focus on unity instead of the primary objective too is not the best strategy.

Funny, we are on the same wavelink, check out the post I did today on divide and conquer. It is a slightly different angle but still funny. Good information in here and timely as well.

Also watch out for the site meetups.com or other in person meetups in large cities. Public meetups are prime locations for agents to set you up with a honey-trap. Be aware.

Thanks @marcus.pulis for the re-steem that lead me here. Defenty hit the 3 magic buttons here and look forward to back pedaling thru @benfarmer material.
Follow
upvote
re-steem

Ben is a friend and has fantastic insights.

I was in a closed group on G+, and a long time member turned out to be a thief and very unethical. When I called them out for it, it broke the group up. Half didn't believe the person could be doing what I said they were doing, and half accepted the clear evidence. I do sometimes wonder if people are sent into groups like the one I was in to destroy it.

What is really insidious, however, is pleas for "UNITY" at times like these saying "Finnian is being devisive."

Very skeptical of anyone who accuses others pointing out discrepancies of being divisive.

Funny that the Kokesh camp has accused several detractors of this very thing, and makes sure to frequently imply that others are "divisive" or "cointel pro."

They suggest others are cointel pro? hah

Trauma kit is on the way... 6 to 8 days. It was only 23 bucks to ship!

Excellent blog, very true that most groups are infiltrated and neutralised from within. This type of "warfare" has been getting worse like you say, yet the majority have not only been brainwashed through social media and false news to accept this new normal but support the actions of the oppressors in constructing this new normal. Targeting individuals is also at an epidemic level, best to fly under the radar.... if you can.

Good read @benfarmer.
Lot's of truth here...

Yes absolutely they have been infiltrated.
How else can you explain:

  • Newt Gingrich being declared the leader of the tea party?
  • Bill Weld a LP VP candidate?
    ...?

But you don't have to blame infiltration on a lot of the divide ourselves nonsense coming from libertarians, voluntaryists, anachists...

  • If you don't believe _______fill in the blank______,
    you're not a true _______fill in the blank______.
    • How about instead we focus on our areas of agreement (UNITY)?

Btw, I haven’t sorted out how to work footnotes (or linked urls) into Steemit’s format yet. If someone could give me a tip about that, my articles will appear a bit less cluttered.

probably some sort of tagging, I don't really mind the links listed out