7 ms·
TBH I wouldn't be surprised if these organizations are infested with FBI agents.
by ferguess_k 2y ago
TBH I wouldn't be surprised if these organizations are infested with FBI agents.
- wildzzz 2y agoEven the small group that tried to kidnap Whitmer had a suspected 12 informants and agents (3 confirmed informants, 2 agents) in the group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot#FBI_informants_and_agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...
- thinkingemote 2y agoIt's also worth pointing out that this pattern is kind of common. As here, these agents are often at the very top. Almost all Organisations of Interest will be compromised at the leadership level. It's something most grass roots activists don't feel intuitively at all. They look for spies among their own level but it's almost always going to be the organisers, the helpers, the ones with the van, the one that can print your posters, the one with a bit of spare cash, the dude who can set up your server and the friendly friend with time to help you personally that are the spies. Logically it makes sense for a spy to be placed as high as possible to get more information, and yet activists look for spies among the rank and file. They look for odd people to label as the spy. They expel the outsider. They suspect the ones that don't fit in. But the spy is going to be a well adjusted normal insider that they already trust, almost always! I find it so interesting. It happens again and again. It's probably the same pattern for any group that attracts any government attention.
- noneeeed 2y agoAs I mentioned in another comment, one of the most amazing examples of this was the British Army/MI5 mole inside the IRA, Freddie Scappaticci, codenamed Steaknife. He was a leading member of the IRA's internal security team. It really feels counterintuitive that someone who has got to the top would be the one to turn, but it also makes sense that they would be the one's targetted.
- mariusor 2y agoI have no information about this specific case, but generally speaking I think that it would be in their best interests for an intelligence agency to push their asset to the top of the org through any means in order to maximise their impact, so, at least to me, it seems plausible that many of the people at the top are informants.
- Spooky23 2y agoThey have the most to lose personally. The rank and file can slither away, but once you’re up in the organization it’s hard to pretend that you’re an innocent. People attracted to this stuff tend to be fairly dysfunctional as well. Even in successful revolutionary movements, the early people always get purged.
- wildzzz 2y agoIt would be difficult to turn top leadership in a group because they are probably the most devoted. It's likely easier to start from the bottom. The guy that always has time to attend meetings or participate or throw in some cash (the ideal member) is going to quickly rise in the ranks. The guy with 5 kids at home and is too busy with work is not going to be an given leadership roles. The guy that only needs a fig leaf of a job is going to have plenty of time to "help" the group plan and execute tasks. He's always going to have some connect that can come through to move things forward. A fed isn't going to be the one to suggest crimes but they will certainly be there at every moment to eagerly help move it forward.
- ty6853 2y agoThe tactics are quite effective. If you put these rats in say the US Army and pursued such vigorous prosecution you could likely lock away the legit rank and file of both military and militias.
- psunavy03 2y agoI'm sorry, are you basing that on your years of experience and significant expertise concerning the US military?
- ty6853 2y agoOh please chime in on how soldiers aren't subject to the same psychological influences of other humans, while charming us on your .mil street cred. I don't need to be a navy seal to understand this, veterans were among those charged in say the Whitmer plot.
- psunavy03 2y agoNo one is denying there are extremists in the military. There are also street gang members in the military. Saying they are a significant portion of the population is a much different argument than saying there is a fringe population where there are standing orders to expel them if found.
- ty6853 2y agoAnd yet instead militias are targeted, while disproportionately sparing say the army. It's not the pursuit of justice and equal 'protection' of law, it's a calculated targeting to induce crime to lock away unwanted people over non criminal disagreements.
- pydry 2y agoI've often wondered if there is research on effective ways of preventing this - of compromise-proofing an institution.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoIf there were such methods, and if these methods were used to compromise-proof an institution, then that institution would see the hammer drop down on them from above like nothing anyone (bystanders, pundits, the world) has ever seen before. Everyone scooped up with black headbags on, rendered to black ops sites. Because, at that point, the government has exactly one play left... to make everyone so afraid of compromise-proofing that no one bothers. This isn't unprecedented, by the way. Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts was a similar situation, and they used illegal NSA surveillance to unmask him and parallel construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) to prosecute. When they have a monopoly on violence and trillion dollar budgets, you're going to lose even if you have superior tactics.
- notahacker 2y agoBasically the plot of The Man Who Was Thursday
- gadders 2y agoJan 6th had loads of FBI informants as well.
- gadders 2y agohttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn850jj44mjo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn850jj44mjo
- sixothree 2y agoI would be less surprised if it were the other way around.
- mjfl 2y ago[flagged]
- wildzzz 2y agoSometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend, other times they are just another enemy. Playing both sides does sometimes get messy but that's the next generation's problem.
- mjfl 2y agoIt's pretty disgusting to demand a domestic crackdown on your political opponents because of the 'threat' posed by an extremist group that you are covertly funding, training, and controlling, which is what happened with Azov.
- idiotsecant 2y agoWhat domestic crackdown are you talking about, specifically?
- mjfl 2y agoThe crackdown on Trump supporters after his 2016 election. https://archive.ph/uJR8h https://archive.ph/uJR8h
- forgetfreeman 2y agoA bunch of claims made there with no evidence supplied to support any of them, and especially nothing linking domestic terrorism with run of the mill Trump supporters, although it's quite telling that one would make that conceptual leap, ostensibly to fuel some sense of personal grievance? Based on first hand experience on the fringes of white supremacist organizations over the decades I'm totally unsurprised to hear law enforcement would have a hard time finding them in bulk as the percentage of people in the US who willingly harbor these kinds of views is a rounding error compared to the larger populace. It's actually pretty shocking how much trouble such a small group of people can cause on the rare occasion that they either muster the courage of their convictions and act on their beliefs or are goaded into action by law enforcement plants. In any case, trivializing these groups, either by dismissing their numbers or by trying to reframe them as mere "political opposition" is deeply stupid. These people are profoundly dangerous.
- bigbacaloa 2y agoSome of those fbi agents are active participants and true believers too.
- lurk2 2y agoBoth organizations have had reputations for being honeypots as early as 2016. There have been a number of instances of federal agents becoming embedded in the organizational structures of groups like this (see e.g. the Malheur Wildlife Standoff and the plot to assassinate Gretchen Whitmer). Groups of this scale tend to fall into one of three categories: 1) They are honeypots set up by policing and / or intelligence agencies, 2) they start off as legitimate (though potentially not-yet radicalized) organizations that are compromised by a member turning informant when the radicalization begins to alarm them, or 3) they start off as radical organizations and are compromised after a federal agency threatens the leadership with jail time or influences them into becoming informants. It's quite common for the FBI to frame this as "helping to keep people safe"; leaders in groups like this are frequently easy to manipulate with flattery.
- noneeeed 2y agoI've been struck by how often it is really quite senior people within criminal/terrorist organisations are the ones that get turned by the various agencies. In the UK, there was an informant for MI5 in the IRA for years codenamed Steaknife. It turned out he was the head of IRA internal security, it was his job to hunt moles. He was the perfect agent. I seem to remember a story of a mafia don who turned out to be an informant, which seems wild to me.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago> I seem to remember a story of a mafia don who turned out to be an informant, which seems wild to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger
- noneeeed 2y agoAha, thank you.
- rufus_foreman 2y agoThe Scorsese movie "The Departed" is both a remake of a film made in Hong Kong ("Infernal Affairs") and a semi-realistic depiction of the Boston Winter Hill Gang led by Bulger.
- monkeydreams 2y agoI think the problem is that the FBI are infested with these fools.
- greener_grass 2y agoEfficient hiring practices?
- sidewndr46 2y agoHasn't Enrique Tarrio admitted at least once he is an informant?
- gadders 2y agoYep. See also Al Sharpton.
- ForTheKidz 2y agoWhich only works in the end if the FBI itself doesn't have an issue with far-right infestation. I don't think we can say that with much confidence.
- red-iron-pine 2y agobollocks. how many got dismissed recently? they went hard against MAGA -- and lost. hundreds of agents cut. they may not have had that bias before, but I'd bet in 6 months, when stocked full of MAGA new-hires, it's a different story.
- potato3732842 2y agoI remember reading in the early 00s archived posts from the early 90s wherein people cracked jokes about the racist groups of the time being barbecue clubs for feds. This is not a new thing.
- nirav72 2y agoThat probably won't last with the recent changes with the FBI leadership.
- bilbo0s 2y agoOh, ye of unbounded belief in fair play. These people are typically the true believers in the Republic. They also believe they are taking down existential threats to the republic. Finally, they believe in defense in layers. You know what they don't believe in? Playing fair. No. I wouldn't count on new homeland security leadership appointees having a "free hand" in practice. All of them will discover that their phone, internet and location activity is known to the security agencies. All of that information is also known for their associates. Couple that with the fact that you're dealing with new appointees whose ideology is essentially based more in superiority rather than patriotism, and it points to a lot in that data trove that would be of interest to the kind of people who keep the FBI running from the shadows. In fact, my bet is that this series of appointees will be far more easily controlled than ones appointed by some red, white and blue boy scout with a martyr complex like McCain would have been for instance. I'd wager there are probably some people in our homeland security infrastructure who actually prefer our appointed leadership be comprised of people who are more malleable.
- cryptonector 2y ago!remindme 4 years
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y agoNot 'just' FBI agents...
- wwweston 2y agoOr foreign influence agents. What more resource efficient way to weaken a competing state than foment rebellion and attacks from within.