This is as much of a rhetorical question as it a plea for legal advice. I am an Anarcho-Pacifist with a former interest in Communization and there seems to be a counter-intelligence program designed to make me out to be a drug runner and Fascist collaborator centered around a local bar, reading group, and within the Anarchist movement, all to varying degrees of knowledge and complicity. I am certifiably insane and I can't prove any of this, though. If I could, though, could I claim that in a court of law?

I haven't actually tried to organize a protest, and, so, don't think that I could. I did leave art in a bunch of places, stage a series of "Industrial Action Paintings", and wage a rather debauched "riot of espionage", but I don't think that any of that really qualifies or would help my case in a court of law. Being said, I'm pretty sure that posting this has just solved this for me. I wouldn't worry about it, I guess.

The FBI claims to no longer be engaged in such operations — thewonder

No comment. Chuckles and guffaws, but no comment.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/dhs-partner-private-firms-surveil-suspected-domestic-terrorists/index.html

Are you referencing 'Cointelpro?

I think it is safe to say that the FBI (and who knows who else) infiltrates and spies upon radical movements. Such spying didn't prevent several groups from disrupting congress on January 6, so one wonders how hard the FBI is trying -- at least with respect to right wing groups.

Whether an individual ends up in the crosshairs of surveillance depends, to some unknown degree on credibility. There are a lot of people out there with some very screwy ideas who, frankly, do not pose much threat to the status quo--however dangerous they might like to think they are. And there are people out there who are a threat, no doubt about it.

Domestic spying, without good cause, violates one's freedom of assembly; freedom of speech; right to privacy. For good cause, domestic spying protects Americans from subversion. That's the theory, anyway.

That was what I was referencing. I'm kind of like a pool shark, in a way. It always seems like I'm just kind of out there, when I can be fairly perceptive. I am also just kind of out there, though. It could just be a delusion of grandeur or persecutory complex, but I kind of feel like nearly everything that I either do or say has a tendency to either backfire or inspire responses in worlds that I have no contact with. I also kind of have that Klaus Kinski complex, though, where I can never quite tell if things seem to revolve around me or if I'm just kind of schizophrenic. It's all very strange, I think. That's all that I'll say.

There are other circles and sets of society for the word to travel in, though. Perhaps, I'm just being overly defensive?


Let's hope that it doesn't become another legend of Ruby Ridge.

I suppose that we should try to have faith, shouldn't we? Should we?

Look at the bright side: they keep tabs on everybody. Pro-choice and Pro-life groups, right-wing militias, left-wing anarchists. After all, domestic terrorism is a heightened threat!

Just look at how they categorize Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs):

- Racial hate groups
- Animal rights & Environmental Violent extremists
- Abortion related violent extremists
- Anti-government / anti-authority extremists
- others

(see: https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/UnclassSummaryofDVEAssessment-17MAR21.pdf )


And as the saying goes, the most bellicose member urging people to take drastic action and being the most paranoid is likely the FBI informer (or plant) in any activist group.

Yeah, I suppose that's the case. I'm, perhaps, just ultimately a little too paranoid.

Let's hope that it doesn't become another legend of Ruby Ridge. — thewonder

Let's hope. The government wants to label everyone who dissents a "white supremacist." It's not true, but it's an example of the Big Lie. We'll have to see how this plays out over the next few years.

The zealotry with which the American Left pursues the Right can actually get out of hand. The FBI tried to entrap that guy into selling weapons to the far-Right, which he refused, and they later waged a full-blown military operation against him in more or less his shack. It gave birth to the American Militia Movement and, by proxy, kind of a lot of existent far-Right groups today. There was an Anarchist in Aufheben who got a lot of flak for conceptualizing some sort of "soft-policing powers". I doubt that he was taken at his word, but such measures would seem to be a lot more effective in countering the far-Right than the heavy-handed measures of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas.

Personally, I'm of the theory that, should law enforcement regulate the drug trade in such a manner to where it is nonviolent and not Fascist, the far-Right will just simply dissolve. Good luck convincing a single other person of that, though.

Readers of this may claim that there are other actors within the drug trade, which I would, to some degree, discount. The Provisional Irish Republican Army decommissioned most of their weapons in 2006. Without the need to purchase weapons, they have no need of trafficking narcotics. The Revolutionary Armed Forces in Columbia has never controlled the lion's share of cocaine there, unlike the paramilitaries whom the Central Intelligence Agency has armed, trained, and funded. There have been a series of crackdowns on the opium trade in Southeast Asia, the excess of which has led me to echo Blind Chance with the expression, "Gestapo!", and I, personally find for it to be somewhat odd for the primary source of the funding of the Taliban to have continued throughout the War in Afghanistan, as it did dramatically decrease during the first year of the war, but has returned to normal ever since. The Opium Wars occurred alongside the proxy way between Great Britain and Russia in Afghanistan, which is a historical connection that not many people make, but, let's just chalk it up to corruption. Anyways, though as it comes off down the line, what we can deduce from this is that it is a set of right-wing political factions who control the lion's share of the drug trade. The primary concern of law enforcement should first be acts of terrorism, focusing upon the far-Right, and, second, be acts of violence, as it concerns the trafficking of narcotics in general. All of our efforts, however, have thusly been focused upon countering the far-Left and preventing the trafficking of narcotics generally. Any number of mafias and terrorist cells can only be meaningfully reformed with a shift in focus towards preventing drug violence, violent coercion, and terrorism. People in law enforcement like to take pictures of themselves with captured weapons and kilos of cocaine, however, and, so, until the Drug Enforcement Agency liberates itself from the cult pathology of how it is that they think that they should deal with drug traffickers, spinning David Bowie's "Rebel Rebel" over their airwaves during the raid, we will just have to continue to endorse, which I do sincerely, the full decriminalization and legalization of all narcotics.


I don't think that you see what my conundrum is. I should like to do away with the cult pathology generated by police informants within any number of activist circles, but kind of suspect that I have actually been isolated from activist circles as part of a campaign by law enforcement. If they're going to incite fanaticism and wait for actions to erupt in violence so as to have a negative example, how can I, when I want not to be thought of as such, and am primarily concerned with my political community not becoming like that not care to counteract such measures. If they seriously want to counter terrorism, then, they shouldn't do such things. I can't prove that I have, but I just feel as if things are that way.

Personally, I'm of the theory that, should law enforcement regulate the drug trade in such a manner to where it is nonviolent and not Fascist, the far-Right will just simply dissolve. Good luck convincing a single other person of that, though. — thewonder

Not entirely sure what that means. The CIA is the world's greatest drug trafficker, has been for decades.

The zealotry with which the American Left pursues the Right can actually get out of hand. The FBI tried to entrap that guy into selling weapons to the far-Right, which he refused, and they later waged a full-blown military operation against him in more or less his shack. It gave birth to the American Militia Movement and, by proxy, kind of a lot of existent far-Right groups today. There was an Anarchist in Aufheben who got a lot of flak for conceptualizing some sort of "soft-policing powers". I doubt that he was taken at his word, but such measures would seem to be a lot more effective in countering the far-Right than the heavy-handed measures of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas. — thewonder

Yes and vice versa. Back in the day it was right wing zealots pursuing the left. Now it's reversed. Not much better. Human nature is awful.

I thought that once, too, but they just have a network of influence within the drug trade. They don't really orchestrate it.

What I'm saying is that focusing on countering on drug violence and leaving it out of the monetary interest of anyone in the drug trade to be affiliated with the far-Right will have the effect of just kind of dissolving the far-Right as a whole. The control they have secured within the drug trade is what is keeping them alive.

People just pin the police on whoever it is that they don't like. The utilization of lawfare within politics is an unfortunate atomic fact. Often, people don't even realize as to how it is that they do this. In so far that they're going to be following anyone, and they will be following someone, it does seem to make the most sense to me for them to actually counter violence, and it is the far-Right and their affiliates who are the greatest purveyors of it, but how to do this is not through heavy-handed punitive measures. There are a lot of other ways to deescalate situations, as well as that going about things as such often hazards the opposite.