Manufacturing terrorism suspects, fake web pages, and informants using lots of rope in darkness: modern lynching online and CVE programs

Whether the target is a Muslim, a Mormon cattle rancher, a black activist, or a poor white kid like William Atchison who get stalked online and then offline by agents provocateurs, aka DHS/FBI/DIA/private contractor/NGO/foreign spy outfit unspecified, informants, a few patterns stand out in the data:
UNDERCOVER FBI AGENTS SWARM THE INTERNET SEEKING CONTACT WITH “TERRORISTS”who they then profile via behavioral analysts, psycholigical operations, and then endlessly monitor their speech online and off, in concert with HUNDREDS of agencies, and using NSA data.
The FBI’s online activities are so pervasive that the bureau sometimes finds itself investigating its own people.

Almost all targets of provocation are male.
All targets of provocations are ensnared online, and followed, monitored and more offline for using words~aka pure first amendment protected speech~sometimes for decades since the NSA dumped hay all over needles in a theretofore previously non-existent “haystack.”
All targets of provocateurs have long term contact with people working under the counter-terrorism rubtrik, or so calked community policing, who seek to INFLUENCE the speaker, from hidden or occulted positions online and off (for instance, social workers, college, or DV type “counselors” target and track individuals, usi.g multiple databases, and share information about their targets with police)
All targets of these hidden programs are manipulated in “directed conversations”which is well documented in the online TI community,and this unrecorded anywhere.
All targets are manipulated, and frequently their most base impulses to food, clothing and shelter~indeed, their base drives, what Freud called libido~are used as tools to manipulate them, and much more, as we saw with the Tsaernev family being targeted for a decade BEFORE the Boston bombing, as well as in the cases of the Seattle Somalis employment and travel being stifled by federal agents, hearsay, and policy (not law.)
In any study of what is colloquially called mind control, and stemming from Nazi/US/British styled torture, or the well documented MKULTRA and its companions Monarch, Bluebird, Phoenix, Gladio-all of these used base drives as ways to manipulate subjects and targets.
And, all base drives, stationed a man, or a woman in the middle to impede or encourage the target toward one or another behavioral goal. So, any study of targeted individuals must account for ling term state/federal ibstruction of base drives, and achievements.
Related Story: Niftygerbil, Niftychinchilla, and other Nifty names for Tor nodes, courtesy of the same geniuses who gave the world Monarch and Bluebird.
So, we see now, the entire organized gang stalking dialectic mirrors the ACTUAL complaints of targeted individuals. Refer to the ROGS BINGO card at the top of this blog for comparison.
So, OGS is far from a delusional complaint, and rather,indicative of manufactured terrorisms un Constitutional basis, and the occulted use of informants whose work in online terror/criminal/other incitement is undocumented by design-a totally unchecked use of actual psychological operations-agents provocateurs actions are not on the record, or in courtroom documents either.
So, in the very least, these online influence and psyops using unchecked, unregulated, hidden, occulted and obscured methods, repeated over time, do indeed form, as the good doctor Lorraine Sheridan has noted~a closed echo chamber, echo chamber, where words themselves are the primary targets, as are the individuals who use the words- they are literally under close monitoring every time a banned word hits Google/Wordpress/Twitter, etc.
Here from NBC News is a story about how the FBI uses informants online and on social media in occulted fashion to police pure speech, and then, to target individuals:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/no-lol-matter-fbi-trolls-social-media-would-be-jihadis-n226841s
And here is a bit more about that from the Intercepts Cora Courier in 2017: ghttps://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/undercover-fbi-agents-swarm-the-internet-seeking-contact-with-terrorists/
“”According to the guie, an online counterterrorism investigation can target websites or online networks that the FBI believes terrorists are using “to encourage and recruit members” or to spread propaganda. Such probes may extend to the administrators or creators of those forums, as well as people engaged in “the development of communications security practices” or “acting as ‘virtual couriers’ for terrorist organizations by passing online messages among members or leadership.”
The guide classes as online investigations those that rely primarily on online informants or undercover employees, and those that involve surveilling internet facilities or foreign websites hosted on U.S. servers. The FBI often runs such operations jointly with other U.S. intelligence agencies or “international partners,” according to the document.
Since 2008, the Counterterrorism Division has coordinated these operations under a program called the Net Talon National Initiative. Net Talon uses informants, linguists, and FBI employees working undercover, posing as ordinary internet users, to zero in on terrorists’ use of the internet, according to the guide. The initiative was meant to centralize expertise on particular targets and platforms, to “address intelligence gaps,” and to create a clearinghouse of the intelligence the bureau has collected on terrorists’ use of the internet.
The FBI’s online activities are apparently pervasive and uncoordinated enough to lead to confusion. The document refers to “resources being wasted by investigating or collecting on FBI online identities,” including undercover employees, informants, or people who have already been investigated by other offices or agencies. An FBI official told the Intercept, “You would be in a forum, and you’re like, ‘This person’s way out there,’ and we’ve gone and opened up a case, and sometimes that was a local police department, or a friendly foreign service. There are still instances of that, and deconfliction is still necessary.”
Khurrum Wahid and Joshua Dratel, defense attorneys for Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, answer questions from the media after Abu Ali was sentenced on March 29, 2006, at a federal court in Alexandria, Va. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
THE COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY GUIDE shows just how much flexibility informants and undercover agents have when operating online, even when they’re not working specific targets. The FBI insists that there is nothing to see here: In statements provided to The Intercept, the FBI said that “while there are obvious differences between online and offline environments,” FBI employees and informants working on the internet are subject to the same rules, and that bureau employees can only monitor people’s online activity as part of an authorized investigation.
The guide, however, suggests that the internet offers areas of ambiguity. Much comes down to the questions of what informants can do, as opposed to FBI employees, and whether the goal of an operation should be construed as seeking to obtain specific intelligence, simply watching public websites, or developing a profile for an undercover identity.
For instance, the guide states that an FBI employee can visit a message forum or blog only when the site is relevant to an investigation. An FBI employee, according to the guide, could be an undercover agent or an “online covert employee,” a term that presumably refers to FBI workers other than agents, like analysts. FBI employees can’t chat online with someone who isn’t already the subject of an investigation for the purposes of gathering intelligence on that person. They can, however, “engage in unlimited communication with associates” of a person under investigation, if the conversations are relevant to the investigation.
Informants and undercover FBI employees are also allowed to do a great deal online in the name of “building bona fides,” such as creating fake identities or making themselves appear to be normal commenters on online fora. The guide says that in order to establish credibility, FBI employees “may make postings and communicate with individuals who are neither the subjects nor the associates of subjects … there is no limitation with respect to the amount of communication [they] may initiate in this regard.”
And the FBI is allowed to open new investigations on people it identifies through “passive monitoring or active communication” on websites.
An FBI spokesperson clarified that in order for an undercover or covert employee to monitor a website or forum, the site must already be associated with an investigation, “either because the forum was known to be used by a subject [of an investigation], or because the subjects are there. I can’t be in the forum trying to bait you into conversation.”
However, the FBI acknowledges that when its employees participate in online fora, they interact with people who may be bystanders to whatever activity led the bureau there in the first place. And that is not accidental. “We want to know if the subject has other people who are joining in, which people are part of the activity, and who is just there,” a spokesperson explained.
In other words, FBI agents can post and chat online with people who have nothing to do with an investigation, so long as they aren’t collecting intelligence — but in the course of those online communications, they can decide to start investigating someone.
Michael German, a former FBI agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, said that agents have always had a little bit of wiggle room in this regard. They can have a certain number of in-person meetings with someone, or in some circumstances go to public meetings or public websites, without identifying themselves as part of the FBI. This helps agents avoid a bureaucratic mess when carrying out a simple “buy and bust” drug sting, for example, German said.
But the ability to conduct unlimited online conversations in the name of building bona fides gives agents “a pretty long rope,” German said.
Criminal defense attorney Khurrum Wahid, who has handled or been an adviser on many national security cases, notes that FBI employees or informants frequently pose as experts offering guidance to lost individuals.
“These uninformed young people go online and become almost smitten with people who show a level of knowledge, who often turn out to be informants or undercovers,” said Wahid.
Informants operate under looser rules than FBI personnel. They are allowed unlimited engagement with a target in the course of an “assessment,” a preliminary investigation that can be opened on a loose tip of suspicious behavior, in order to collect general intelligence on a subject, or to evaluate a potential new informant. Assessments were created as a category in 2008. German finds their allowance for the expansive use of informants problematic.
“What we’ve seen in sting operations is that there is this shady portion before the official operation begins which often involves the informant,” said German. “And then it’s passed off to an agent, and it looks like they are ready to commit a crime pretty quickly.”
Wahid noted that at least in online cases, there are generally logs of all the conversations between suspect and informant, whereas “when it’s a live informant, they can turn off the recorder and we never know what it was all about.”
The use of informants in counterterrorism sting operations has expanded since the 9/11 attacks, when the FBI adopted the mantra that its job is to stop terror attacks before they occur, not just investigate them afterward. The government argues that the anonymity the internet affords to suspects necessitates an aggressive approach, including stings. The FBI’s national security director told the New York Times this summer that “using undercover agents online allowed the FBI to ‘flesh out’ suspects by gaining their trust and persuading them to disclose their real identities.” In some cases, the FBI even created fake webpages in order to draw in suspects.
“Agencies are under a lot of pressure to find a needle in a haystack, something that has haunted us since the beginning of the war on terror,” said Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. “It’s true that the internet has changed everything about how we communicate, but are we just going to be trawling online forever? It turns the principles of criminal investigation on their head.””

Organized gang stalking, Scott Crow, disinformation and informants.

Scott Crow, an anarchist, animal rights activist, has gone on record stating that organized “gang stalking is bullshit,”which is alright- because everyone is entitled to an opinion. And as they say, even assholes have those. Opinions, of course. And, I guess for some, it’s easier to love fuzzy or feathered critters and act like cute, four year old anarchists with lil’ diapies full of doodoo, than to deal with the real issues of gross human rights abuses of corporatism colluding with a full blown surveillance/security state to do things to people that were unimagined at the height of America’s last Constitutional crisis of the 1960’s (click here to see the catalogue of surveillance gear available to LEO’s who spy on American citizens without warrants).
But to the hundreds of thousands of people world wide who claim to be harassed by unknown assailants, various electronics ranging from wiretaps and StingRay towers, cell phone emulation, and sound weapons (what’s that clicking on my phone?!), and stalkers- lots of stalkers who do plainly weird shit called street theater- the evidence is against Mr. Crow’s opinion.
There is ample evidence of religions and cults that stalk people; evidence that the intelligence agencies and some really bad  LEO’s stalk people; retired LEO’s stalk people, the USAF and Naval NCIS working with the CIA and others stalk people; a HUGE well heeled operation of conformity enforcement run by the OSI and there is sh!tloads of evidence that it is part of a large, orchestrated crisis PR movement. And of course, every crisis PR movement needs useful idiots, who are just glad the pendulum missed their neck.
Scott Crow.org, on gang stalking:

In the last couple of years I became aware that I have accidentally become the poster child for a marginal, but rising movement.   It’s a movement of the disaffected, and somewhat marginalized in civil society. And like all of us its made of those alienated by the ills of capitalism: our atomized communities,  the overwhelming media (online and corporate) that can reverberate any idea into truth and the growing overwhelming complexities of our social and political spheres.  There is also another important piece that I have to throw into this cauldron that has given rise to this movement too; the farce called the war on terror and its all ensuing baggage of the surveillance state. Sounds intriguing doesn’t it? If you guessed I was talking about anarchy, social justice or even LOLcats you would have guessed wrong.  What I am referring to is an internet phenomena called gangstalking and somehow my surveillance by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force for almost 9 years became the actual proof they all needed to say they were right all along; that they weren’t just paranoid.  Except I wasn’t gangstalked.

Related Story: The famous Civil Rights photographer Ernest Withers-who photographed ALL of the black leaders of the 1960’s, was a paid RAT. Bonus points if you can answer the question: And WHY was this guy at the hotel where Martin Luther King was shot dead?
SO- make of Scott Crow’s opinion what you will, But psychologists and other paid disinformation agents who both benefit directly from drug companies and privatized prison payrolls, and those who work with schizophrenics and sex offenders have even waged a classic “black propaganda” campaign to discredit those who claim they are harassed.
I DUNNO. MEBBE They is all caaaaraaaazy. Or not.
Either way? Any scientist, sociologist, intel agent, or crisis PR moron can take the data provided in this blog and test the many proofs and hypotheses themselves, against historical events like COINTELPRO, and the destruction/co-option of the peace/anti-war/Civil rights movement. You can look for- and find- the evidence that I provide herein-and replicate the methods, and find new validation yourself. I have merely provided a starting point.
But it boils down to this: people like Scott Crow, who was followed, surveilled and harassed by the FBI in what amounts to a fairly traditional investigation of a fairly pasty white traditional ‘suspect’ claims OGS is “total bullshit.” I mean-after all- animal rights people are startlingly quiet about warrantless surveillance, human rights, prison reform, and how the targeted, flawed and sociopathic Countering Violent Extremism programs work with local LEO’s and private security contractors to terrorize TI’s into complicity with snitch culture.
You don’t have to believe me- ask an actual RAT, Greg Monteilh, former FBI informant, about the “murky” practice of “flipping” innocent people into becoming agency informants-from the Guardian UK:

The ex-FBI informant with a change of heart: ‘There is no real hunt. It’s fixed’-Craig Monteilh describes how he pretended to be a radical Muslim in order to root out potential threats, shining a light on some of the bureau’s more ethically murky practices….(follow the link to learn more).

Just off the top of my internet, I can think of these many many validated tactics below that are reported by TI’s. And these days, as the NSA shares data with 16 other intel agencies and targets American citizens, it ain’t gettin’ any prettier out there without due process (even if Mr. Crow thinks it’s all bullshit, some of us still believe in Constitutional Democracy. And Mr. Crow and his pals- most of them animals- don’t read the Constitution anyways.).
A short list of what the NSA et al is doing to American citizens BEFORE they turn the data over to the local LEO’s-from Brian Lehrer-and ask yourself how YOU would feel with this arsenal pointed at YOU, personally:
THE NSA CAN:

  •  track the numbers of both parties on a phone call, as well location, time and duration. (More)
  • It can hack Chinese phones and text messages. (More)
  • It can set up fake internet cafes. (More)
  • It can spy on foreign leaders’ cell phones. (More)
  • It can tap underwater fiber-optic cables. (Clarification: Shane Harris explains that there were reports the NSA was trying to tap directly into cables using submarines, but is now more likely trying to intercept information once it has reached land.) (More)
  • It can track communication within media organizations like Al Jazeera. (More)
  • It can hack into the UN video conferencing system. (More)
  • It can track bank transactions. (More)
  • It can monitor text messages. (More)
  • It can access your email, chat, and web browsing history. (More)
  • It can map your social networks. (More)
  • It can access your smartphone app data. (More)
  • It is trying to get into secret networks like Tor, diverting users to less secure channels. (More)
  • It can go undercover within embassies to have closer access to foreign networks. (More)
  • It can set up listening posts on the roofs of buildings to monitor communications in a city. (More)
  • It can set up a fake LinkedIn. (More)
  • It can track the reservations at upscale hotels. (More)
  • It can intercept the talking points for Ban Ki-moon’s meeting with Obama. (More)
  • It can crack cellphone encryption codes. (More)
  • It can hack computers that aren’t connected to the internet using radio waves. (Update: Clarification — the NSA can access offline computers through radio waves on which it has already installed hidden devices.) (More)
  • It can intercept phone calls by setting up fake base stations. (More)
  • It can remotely access a computer by setting up a fake wireless connection. (More)
  • It can install fake SIM cards to then control a cell phone. (More)
  • It can fake a USB thumb drive that’s actually a monitoring device. (More)
  • It can crack all types of sophisticated computer encryption. (Update: It is trying to build this capability.) (More)
  • It can go into online games and monitor communication. (More)
  • It can intercept communications between aircraft and airports. (More)
  • (Update 1/18) It can physically intercept deliveries, open packages, and make changes to devices. (More) (h/t)
  • (Update 1/18) It can tap into the links between Google and Yahoo data centers to collect email and other data. (More) (h/t)
  • (Update 4/2) It can monitor, in real-time, Youtube views and Facebook “Likes.” (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can monitor online behavior through free Wi-Fi at Canadian airports. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can shut down chat rooms used by Anonymous and identify Anonymous members. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can use real-time data to help identify and locate targets for US drone strikes. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can collect the IP addresses of visitors to the Wikileaks website. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can spy on US law firms representing foreign countries in trade negotiations. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can post false information on the Internet in order to hurt the reputation of targets. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can intercept and store webcam images. (More)
  • (Update 4/2) It can record phone calls and replay them up to a month later. (More)
  • (Update 6/2) It can harvest images from emails, texts, videoconferencing and more and feed it into facial recognition software. (More)

Did we miss any? Mischaracterize any capabilities? Let us know in the comments, or tweet @brianlehrer.
Suuure. It’s all bullshit- yeah, that sounds about right. Yup-keep your head up your ass, play it safe, m’boy. “They” are prolly all crazy- no electronics involved at all. Nothing to see here move along now….