Infiltrating Violent Protest Organizations
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 2 months ago
Oathkeepers has a very interesting, almost riveting, piece up on recent work to infiltrate violent protest organizations. There is a lot of information on their methods and results. My general comment is that these oathkeepers are very committed and this cost them a lot of time, money and sleep. My hat is off to them. I have more specific questions below.
Here is a snippet, and from this I hope you go on over to Oathkeepers to get the rest of the story. Thanks to reader Blake for sending this my way.
The liberal socialists are primarily coming out of our higher education system. They are comprised of professors, students and under-employed graduates. They are primarily white with a roughly equal split between male/female. They are not militant. They are willing to conduct blockades, marches and sit-ins.
The communists are a much broader spectrum of society with a strong leaning towards immigration issues. The communists actively recruit from a wide pool of candidates, including liberal socialists, the LBGT community, the environmental activists and the anti-white racist groups (Black Lives Matter, La Raza, Islamic Fundamentalists, etc.). They have a significant number of minorities in their ranks and they are militant in their operations and planning. The communists encourage independent action of their members to assimilate members from groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and other less militant organizations like ANSWER Coalition. They have no ethical boundaries. To communists, the ends always justify the means. They will do everything that the liberal socialist do in order to protest an issue and always take it one step further. They are not inclined to conduct direct actions.
The anarchists are by far the most dangerous of these groups. They are organized like militias. They actively train and practice their operations. They have discipline and zero tolerance for weakness. They have a number of former military personnel providing expertise to enhance security, logistics and martial arts capabilities. The majority are physical fit, military age males. They are primarily white with few minority members. Their leadership tends to be either former military, a proven leader from the occupy movement or a highly educated alpha-male. They are far more capable than their recent activities would demonstrate. They have formed community defense organizations and are idolized for their willingness to take action from the other groups discussed above. They are however anarchists that despise communism as much as they despise capitalism. They see patriots and constitutionalists as their primary enemy. To them, everyone is a NAZI or a fascist unless they are an anarchist. There is no debate allowed on these issues, ever. They operate under various names, but the vast majority identify with the anti-fascist movement. With the election of President Trump, their membership has increased exponentially. There are at least 50,000 nationwide. They have been able to assimilate much of the “occupy” and “black-bloc” movements. Most of what these organizations accomplish are classified as direct actions. They will participate in a protest or a march, but they are not big fans of passive resistance.
Ideologically, I think I understand the first two groups very well. It’s the third group that puzzles me. I don’t understand anarchists, so maybe in the comments section someone can explain them to me.
Let’s me clear and not whitewash this. True anarchy isn’t something this group of “anarchists” has ever seen. No sugar coating, anarchy is going without an electrical power grid – forever. It’s going without food delivery, it’s going without medical care, it’s having no potable sources of water.
If there is anarchy, that means that workers cannot get to the power stations to generate electricity because the roads have all been torn up and there are thieves and robbers and shooters on the roads everywhere, at least until the ammunition runs out. If there is anarchy, petrol cannot get to stations and so there is no means to get workers to the hospitals. You go without medical care – forever. It means that you had better have a means to remove turbidity from the water and enough chlorine that you can decontaminate it after filtering. And it means that you will need to ensconce near a water source.
You will need to find your own food sources, and soon enough the deer, feral hogs and black bears will have been culled or gone into hiding. Sooner or later the survivors will be hunting dogs to eat. So I think we’ve painted the picture well enough.
Where do these “anarchists” come from? Is this a group of FPS gamers who think the world is really like that, but who decided that they would be inconsistent with their worldview and ride buses or aircraft to their staging location for their riots? How will they riot when there is no more fuel for travel? Where do they eat, the local restaurants? Do they realize that if they are successful, there will be more places to eat like that?
Seriously. It occurs to me that they cannot have a consistent or well-crafted world view, and they cannot have peered into the future to see an end state for their rioting. What do they want? What are they after? What is the end state for them?
I do not understand the anarchists.
|
|
On February 2, 2017 at 1:51 am, RustyGunner said:
The first “Anarchists” I met were the Anarcho-capitalists among the libertarians. They are mostly well-meaning if very Utopian in their ideas (I am so going to get flamed. Again). They approach “anarchy” from the “no rulers” self-government ideal. The guys in the Fawkes masks seem to be using “anarchy” in its pejorative sense and so far as I can see are nihilists putting a gloss of cause on a bad case of the hates and a desire to break and burn things. They are dangerous, since I don’t believe there is any Danegeld that would make them go away. Satisfy their demands and watch the demands change.
On February 2, 2017 at 6:13 am, Johnny Rockets said:
I’ve been led to understand many of these violent ‘anarchists’ are funded by George Soros through his many foundations. Open Borders, Tides Foundation, etc. Follow the money I would think.
On February 2, 2017 at 9:41 am, joefour said:
Here is a comment from Hungary about George Soros … recently posted by Paul Craig Roberts on his site …
Dear Dr. Roberts, Being the citizen of Hungary, a country heavily infested by Soros-financed NGO’s, and with a government that is openly anti-Soros, it breaks my heart to see the USA in a situation very much like what we have had to put up with since 2010, the year when Viktor Orban won a two-thirds majority, which he won again in 2014. Today, there is one piece of experience that is, I think, crucial for us, Hungarians, to share with the USA. It is this: nothing is sacred or too dear for Soros, his NGO’s and associates of all stripes in their fight for power. This has been a concept quite hard to come to terms with for many of us in Hungary. They will sacrifice the country, the future, the people, they will sacrifice anything, just to (re-)gain power. As I follow news from the USA, I see photos of crowds that appear to be filled with hatred. They are like the (fortunately quite diminished) crowds paraded around by the Hungarian opposition parties, who like to call themselves “democratic” as opposed to the government elected to office by the people, which they refer to as “fascist, nazi, anti-democratic, anti-semitic” etc. These crowds are the embodiment of hypocrisy. Chanting slogans of “love”, they act out of pure hatred, for power, and refuse to be reasoned with. They refuse to consider facts. They call themselves liberals, but act against liberty through exercising total intolerance. I assume that the people who voted for President Trump are patriotic. If my assumption is correct, this also means that it will take quite some time, until the reality sinks in that Soros, his NGO’s and allies will trample down, unhesitatingly, the nation and the empire that they seek to rule unchallenged. This is because they do notrule for the people. They need the power to be in the position to exploit the nation and the empire, for their own benefit. This is not an easy thought to come to terms with for a patriot. The sooner the US electorate understands this, the more resistant it can become against the propaganda campaign and high visibility demonstrations so happily covered by the mainstream media. It is important to keep in mind that the room to maneuver President Trump has is directly proportionate to the popular support he enjoys, at any given time. Dr. Roberts, thank you for all your valuable work invested into making the world a better – and safer – place, for the benefit of all Mankind. Kind regards, Anita
On February 2, 2017 at 7:33 am, Frank Clarke said:
I think most people (as you do) equate ‘anarchy’ with ‘chaos’ and I do not believe that must always be. Anarchy does not preclude cooperation, nor does it preclude a community opting to subscribe to some outside service that implies collecting a share from the subscribers and passing it along to the supplier-of-services. That looks alarmingly like ‘taxes’ with the single exception that no one is forcing anyone to subscribe and incur an obligation to pony up.
I have a few friends from college who are committed Eastern-establishment liberals. It is impossible for me to convince them that individualism is not mutually exclusive with cooperation and community, and (in fact) I have stopped trying. I hope I won’t find the same syndrome here.
I describe myself as a “radical Rothbardian libertarian”. When people ask me what that means I just tell them “anarchist”. It may, however, be a much different anarchism than they can wrap their minds around. A friend once suggested that the difference between between a (traditional) anarchist and a libertarian was the difference between a rapist and a lover: their goals are identical, but they get there by different paths.
On February 2, 2017 at 9:08 am, BlakeW58 said:
Herschel, and I’m spitballing here, I wonder if the anarchists are merely feudal overlords under another name?
Great, question, by the way and an obvious one to ask. I wish I’d have thought of it.
On February 2, 2017 at 10:09 am, Ed Jewett said:
As I understand anarchism, it is a rejection of the State and society as a whole and its interest and ability to proscribe behavior, one’s right to “misbehave” or do what thou will. Anarchism saw a peak as the late 1600s turned into the 1900s, came out of Europe to America, and is a tool of communism. Think Emma Goldman. Along with the book “Perfectibilists”, here are links to articles that, when scanned, may give an overview, especially the last one:
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
https://networks.h-net.org/system/files/contributed-files/ar550_0.pdf
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-wilson-against-mass-society
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1623
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/563664
https://anarchistnotebook.com/page/2/
In short, anarchism isn’t interested in building a society or government, only destroying its ability to control people. As such, it is easily harnessed to create chaos into which more powerful types can slip a different form of control, likely a unified world government or totalitarian approach. Hence Soros, who is the agent of the Marxist-Rothschild movement described in the book “Perfectibilists”.
On February 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm, BaconLover said:
It was explained to me a long time ago like this:
Arsonists burn things down for money
Pyromaniacs just want to watch the world burn…period
These people are just like pyromaniacs, they do not think of the future or their actions
On February 2, 2017 at 2:12 pm, BlakeW58 said:
Actually, I think they know exactly what they’re doing and are willing to sacrifice their true believers so they can step into the power vacuum and take over.
I read the article and these people are incredibly well organized for a group that claims to be a bunch of anarchists.
These are not anarchists as they brook no dissent whatsoever. These are people looking to gain power. The anarchist label is just that.