Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer

October 19, 2016

So, we’ve got ourselves a burgeoning little movement here then, don’t we?

Sure we do. Things are going very well, overall. We are dozens of times bigger than we were two years ago. We appear to have held onto the Alt-Right label. The fags have backed-off.

Whatever the turnout of the election, we’re going to grow by leaps and bounds – rapidly.

Full speed ahead.

There is this issue though, which we need to talk about: federal informants. It’s not a nice issue to talk about. But it is an extremely important one to understand.

This is the deal: basically, there is zero chance that there are not already federal informants in our midst attempting to kike us up. We need to be aware of that.

At the same time, we can’t go around calling people feds without definitive proof, because it is an extremely serious accusation. Once you start throwing it around, everyone starts calling each other feds and nothing makes any sense. Which is exactly why accusing people of being feds is a fed tactic.

What we need to do is be aware of what they do, and be able to identify this behavior. After the behavior is identified, those engaging in it must be simply ignored/shunned. Because ultimately, whether or not they actually are feds is irrelevant. If they are acting exactly as feds would act, it doesn’t make any difference if they are being directed to act that way or not.

To shed further light on this issue of utmost importance, I’m going to pull some quotes from a handwritten prison essay entitled “How Federal Informants Work” by White activist Bill White, as diligently transcribed by Alex Linder of VNN.

Bill White was taken down by the feds, so has a pretty good idea what he’s talking about.

There was once a time when a group of people could get together, shout “informant” in unison, and slander the reputation of a political activist. With the emergence of the internet, and the easy availability of government records, it has become easy for any person to quickly determine whether someone has rendered substantial assistance to the government. Here, I will explain how federal informants work and how one can access information on them. I also urge people to stop treating this subject so lightly – rehabilitating actual dangerous informants, while using the term “informant” as a smear.

White first explains the paid informant position, which is probably less important to us than the prison snitch, which I think is mainly what we are dealing with now.

But the paid informant concept is real and important to understand, so let’s look at that.

The US Department of Justice employs about 10,000 FBI field agents. FBI regulations require each agent to employ at least 4 confidential informants, and suggest 10 as an appropriate mean. This means that approximately 100,000 Americans work as informants for the FBI. When America’s other 32 law enforcement agencies are considered, between 600,000 and 12 million Americans — perhaps one out of every 200 adults — works fulltime for the federal government reporting on other Americans. Informants are paid approximately $400/week for their services. Thus, this profession tends to attract those for whom $1730 a month — $20,800 a year — is a substantial incentive. People who are not mentally ill or otherwise living on disability and welfare benefits, or people laboring at the lower echelons of drug organizations, tend to be particular recruitment targets, as are those who are otherwise unemployed. Informants also receive a bonus for convicting others — generally, they receive $100 for every year of sentence a victim receives — 20 years is a $2000 bonus, for instance. The method of the informant is usually the instigation of inchoate crimes. The federal government may convict any two people who agree to commit a crime, one of whom has taken an act in furtherance, of conspiracy. There are few restrictions. The government must show a propensity towards the crime — being previously convicted of drug dealing is enough to allow an informant to target someone with a drug conspiracy; speaking out angrily is enough to justify trying to involve someone in an act of terrorism. The only rule is that the informant may not be one of the two required people. In cases where the government cannot put two people together, they often try to invite a solicitation. This is how Matt Hale was framed. The government will infiltrate someone into an organization they believe is committing crimes, and try to involve them as “security” or as a “soldier.” This person will let the group leader know he is available to commit a crime, and will wait to be solicited. In the case of the Blind Sheik — and Matt Hale — the informant may say he is going to commit a crime, and ask for the leader’s blessing. The government targets these inchoate crimes because they are easier to prosecute than actual crimes. The FBI, for instance, has manuals — playbooks — of how crimes are to be put together. … Below the level of investigating crimes, federal informants also monitor political and media organizations and shape public discourse. Many newspaper reporters are on the federal payroll, or have a less formal relationship with federal law enforcement. This channel prevents negative coverage of federal cases and allows journalistic information to be funneled to US Attorneys. Within organizations, deeper-cover informants identify targets and help shape discourse — promoting other informants to leadership positions and doing federal dirty work. Some examples: [Individual A] became involved in an anti-immigrant organizing group. He has written he meets monthly at McDonalds with Indiana State Police and the FBI to discuss the white movement. He is not paid — though he would be if he was smart enough to ask. He’s an informant. In the future, if the government decides he is suitable for a “leadership” role, others will be told to go on white message boards and support him. He may be asked from time to time to speak well, or speak badly, of other white activists. MP may not even realize he is being manipulated — but he is being used.

That’s key right there.

They use an army of anonymous message board posters to attack or promote figures. They have been doing this since the internet started.

– HT ran a radio show on FM radio in New York, and on the internet. On his radio show, he would call for violence against blacks, Mexicans, and federal officials. When a listener would respond, HT would turn them over to the feds — often for further investigation. His show was a “honeypot.”

Always, always, always be aware of anyone who is encouraging acts of violence.

And I don’t mean saying “these people should be hanged for treason,” but telling you or others to go out and commit specific acts of violence.

They are either a fed or they are effectively a fed.

And if someone is doing this but is not an actual fed, the feds will generally just allow him to keep doing it, while monitoring his communications. It’s all the same to them. If the person encouraging violence isn’t on the payroll, that means they’re saving the taxpayer $400 a week.

Violent skinhead groups were a concern to the feds. One day, a group called VSC was formed. This group declared “war” on all other skinheads. Then, they declared they were not “racist.” They would attack other white organizations, beat, stab, or set on fire white activists, and claimed nothing could happen in Indiana without their permission. Every once in a while, a few of their worst members would be arrested and sent to prison. This group is a “false front.” It was organized by federal informants as a “honeypot” for violent thugs, but its violence was used by the feds to suppress and control non-violent white organizations. Thus, in addition to social control, physical violence is used to control and suppress political dissent.

This is something that isn’t directly relevant to the present movement, but the principle is the same.

They will attempt to replace popular organic dissent with controlled dissent and then use the controlled group to attack the organic group.

Again, whenever you see a group attacking other groups, you should assume they are feds or effectively feds.

These examples show FBI priorities — monitoring groups for future targets, establishing media to shape political opinion, establishing groups to use violence to suppress political dissent, inciting “hate crimes” (legal “terrorism”) for political purposes, and placing members in leadership positions to guide and monitor organizations. Also note what the FBI did not do — and never does. They did not establish any legitimate businesses or organizations or attempt to involve anyone in legal activities. They did not foster charity or attempt to build anything to help other people. And, they never made an effort to legitimately influence the political process through elections.

That is also extremely key.

Whenever you see people who are entirely focused on either negativity or inane nonsense, they should be considered suspect. This especially applies to endless circular nonsense, such as aggressively pushing for or against religious ideas, or arguing about complex conspiracy theories which cannot be proved either way, rather than focusing on what is clearly happening in the here and now.

Conversely, people who are attempting to organize in a positive way are probably not feds, even if you don’t necessarily agree with their methods.

Now, onto the more relevant part – the kind of informant we are most likely to be dealing with.

So far, we have talked about informants in the civilian world. Now, we examine informants in the federal justice system. The federal justice system is structured to reward informants and guilty pleas. A person pleading guilty in the federal system has their sentence reduced by about 8%. If they “accept responsibility,” perhaps by cooperating, their sentence is reduced by one-third. If they receive what is called a SKI reduction for “substantial assistance,” their sentence is reduced 50%. They may also receive a “safety valve,” voiding a mandatory minimum. The easiest way to see if a federal inmate provided pre-trial cooperation is to look at their sentence. If their sentence is not within sentencing guidelines — all federal sentences are controlled by federal sentencing guidelines — find out why. If they received or asked for a SKI reduction, they cooperated. After sentencing, an inmate may continue to cooperate. An inmate who provides substantial cooperation after sentencing receives a Rule 35. A Rule 35 is a post-conviction sentence reduction for cooperation.

An Israeli-trained informant recruiter for the FBI tried to make me a contact. I of course refused.

But the way he did it was very interesting. The approach was “I want you to feel like you can talk to me if you think there’s something I need to know, and this will keep you safe.”

If I had agreed to communicate with them, I would have eventually been tricked into changing some detail of a story, which would put me in a position where I had committed a federal crime by having lied to a federal officer. They would then have threatened me with prison if I didn’t cooperate.

I am certain that I am not the only one in this movement who has been approached by a FBI informant recruiter, but I am one of the only ones who has talked about it publicly.

So, has anyone else agreed to talk to them, thinking it was all cool, and then been roped into a threat of prison if they didn’t cooperate and do as they were told?

I would be extremely surprised if that hadn’t happened.

If it had happened to someone, the main thing they would do is try and break down the movement by attacking others in it. Because most of us are on the internet, and we aren’t linked to prison culture in the way the White movement of the 70s, 80s and 90s was, it is hard to get us to commit acts of violence. So, the deal is, they try and make sure that the movement isn’t cohesive. The main way to do this is to get people to fight with each other nonstop.

“Infighting” is of course different from genuine criticism of the politics of others. There is nothing wrong with saying you don’t like the way Jared Taylor claims that Jews are huwhite. There would be something wrong if you spent endless hours accusing Jared Taylor of being a criminal, or being a federal agent, etc.

There is also no excuse for making a huge deal out of these disagreements. I will occasionally voice certain disagreements like this when they come up, such as when Jared Taylor was recently in the media claiming that Jews should be involved in the Alt-Right. It was fair for me to point out that I disagree with this, and it wasn’t a situation where I was “infighting” or breaking down the cohesion of the movement by purposefully drawing people’s motives into question.

White goes on to explain that this isn’t a game and you shouldn’t just go around accusing people of being feds.

Because this is a serious issue, treating it like a funny gossiping game is inappropriate. Real federal informants are never rehabilitated — the feds will continue to approach them 20 or 30 years after the fact. Fake allegations of informing trivialize a serious issue. The federal government is the party who most wants informants rehabilitated and honest activists smeared. Game-players play into federal goals. Because this is a serious issue, serious evidence should be required. Because our societal institutions are dishonest, all evidence must be treated skeptically. However not all government documents are false, nor are all media reports. Evidence begins with an individual’s own statements. Individuals cooperating with the FBI usually know to keep their cooperation secret — but some don’t. … When others discuss meetings with the FBI, it should cause some concern. Not everyone visited by the FBI is guilty of cooperating — but the best way to approach an FBI visit is to say “I’m represented by counsel,” to give the name of an attorney you know, and refuse to speak without that counsel present. Any other response is unwise.

It is more than unwise.

It is absolutely insane.

There is no justifiable reason to ever talk to federal agents under any circumstances unless your lawyer is present. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who does talk to them should be assumed to be cooperating.

I would even go a step further and say that if anyone knows someone else is talking to the cops, and doesn’t make it public, they are a traitor of the same tier as the potential snitch.

He then explains the obsession Feds have with baseless accusations and personal attacks – again, this is what matters to us, as it is the main thing going down.

The real danger, though, comes from paid informants pushing the FBI agenda. It is hard to tell these types apart from honest weirdos sometimes. Certain behaviors, though, are suspicious. One is making allegations about others without specifics or evidence. When evidence is presented, truth can be discerned — when an individual will not make a specific, disprovable allegation, and is not open to reason, they are suspicious. … I’ve learned over the years not to say something unless I have reason to believe it’s true — and to withdraw it and apologize if I’m wrong. For instance, I have been reasonably told Jared Taylor’s wife Evelyn Rich is not Jewish, and received a good explanation of how the ADL misused a paper she wrote. I have apologized for this allegation. I still dislike Taylor’s politics — but I withdraw my ad hominem as incorrect. Evidence continues with first-person accounts. First person accounts may be wrong. They are often not objective. They should be investigated and substantiated. … The FBI opened a “Terrorism Enterprise Investigation” into me in 2007 because a police detective in 1996 said I had been involved in an arson. An FBI investigation into the arson concluded there was “no evidence.” The agent who used the report took the allegation without the investigation report to justify “getting me” within FBI rules. White activists often do the same thing — take one allegation without investigation, and assert it as true. In most cases, there are documents and records to justify or deny an allegation. I have made myself a promise never to again accuse someone of anything without reasonable proof. This is why I seek documents and witnesses. … There is also the question of — if an allegation is true, so what? Informants are dangerous because they often lie to manufacture crimes, and the FBI’s internal files are like an internet message board where the accused can not only not respond, but can be jailed and tortured based on rumor. … True National Socialists are attracted to NS because they seek goodness in a corrupt world. Many become too enthused and become too obsessed with moral purity. I’ve been in this category. When one strives for virtue, it is easy to reject flawed mankind. However, our excessive surface “purity” and our movement’s inner corruption has paralyzed white activism. Thus, in addition to demanding evidence, the white movement needs to start asking “so what?” … These are difficult questions — but they belong in a broader discussion of baseless allegations. In addition to demanding evidence — we have to also ask, if true, do these allegations matter? Are they within an acceptable range of human error and fallibility, given what needs to be done.

White closes with a much-needed call for reasonableness.

I am no longer involved in white political activity. If the white movement wants to destroy itself — insofar as further destruction is possible — that is its business. But, I believe in the vision of Adolf Hitler — in a beautiful, orderly world that promotes life and human happiness — and I am saddened to see the same-old same-old predominate as the world dies. What should be a beautiful celebration of love has been polluted and turned into a celebration of degeneracy and hate. The FBI directs white activism into criminal activity and Jewish groups direct white power parodies into white ranks. Many of the most cynical have abandoned NS ideals to support the “new right wing” — Zionism — and many others seem to be talking just to earn their government check. I urge people to set fantasy aside and to focus on evidence, on reality, and on what can be demonstrated. There are many resources available to us to sustain the gossip and rumor-backed communities of 20 years ago. These efforts, often sponsored by people trying to harm white people, ultimately lead nowhere.

So, hopefully this will help people to identify the kind of behavior that federal informants exhibit, and avoid individuals who engage in these behaviors.

Again, the goal of the feds is and will continue to be to break down the cohesiveness of our movement. The most important thing is to focus on the agenda, and forget about personalities. Judge people based on their contributions. And don’t run around making baseless accusations or getting caught up with people who do that.

This has all gotten heavy and it’s going to get heavier. We all need to have our heads in the right place.

Hail Victory.