COS Socialists' Infiltration By Cops Shows Left Is Still Scapegoated In US Of A

Colorado Springs Socialists march downtown recently. Infiltration by police has come to light, but it's nothing new for left groups in the U.S..


The news that Colorado Springs Socialists were infiltrated by local police should not come as news for most deep politics researchers. Indeed, we'd seen this show before with the attempted infiltration and spying on Occupy Wall Street.  Recall, by early October,2012,  the movement arrived in Houston, Texas, whereupon law enforcement officials and the city’s banking and oil industry executives went ape shit even more so than they did in some other cities. The push-back took the form of violent assaults by police on Occupy activists, federal and local surveillance of people seen as organizers, infiltration by police provocateurs—and, as crazy as it sounds, a plot to assassinate the “leaders” of this non-violent and leaderless movement. (Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what the document obtained from the Houston FBI said as related by David Lindorff : http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494 )

In fact, trained snipers were to be assembled for attacks on protesters in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and other cities, e.g.


In addition, anyone alive in the late 60s knows it was the FBI's COINTELPRO  program which actually infiltrated multiple protest groups including the Weather Underground, Yippies, the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)  as well as less well known groups.  More on this below.

So the template has been used for some time, and the infiltration in COS is not new. As reported by The Colorado Springs Independent, the infiltrators were

"Two undercover Colorado Springs Police officers serving with the Metro, Vice, Narcotics and Intelligence Division (Metro VNI) whose intelligence-gathering work relies on anonymity." 

In the case of the two spy cops in the Springs, their cover was partially blown as a result of an operation on March 26. That day, the officers went undercover to embed in a “March Against Imperialism” organized by the Colorado Springs Socialists, which culminated in the citation of four marchers for obstructing a roadway and failure to disperse. When the City Attorney’s office turned over the evidence via discovery, the defendants viewed body camera footage that revealed the undercovers in their midst.

The Socialists were alarmed to learn in the aftermath that law enforcement had infiltrated their peaceful assembly, particularly given CSPD’s history of spying on (generally leftist and environmentalist) activist groups. In truth, the Socialists should not have been alarmed given the history of American law enforcement busting into left groups dating all the way back to the Wobblies in the 20s. (Google it!) 

Fast forward to the late 60s, early 70s, and infiltration of left groups went on "steroids" with  the FBI's COINTELPRO  operations. The basic strategy was to dress these undercover agents like hippies (bell bottoms, long hair, floral shirts) then have them "join" the groups and spread havoc from within by telling lies or planting false info. (Google COINTELPRO and learn more about it.)   It is perhaps true that the most radical misfits in those 60s Left groups (like the Weather Underground) spurred much more targeting and infiltration  of the left-leaning "normal" groups.

I guess one might go along with the old saw "Peter got to pay for Paul" or some such, i.e. if "Peter" is relatively innocent -merely exercising his free speech - but "Paul" is the real bad guy. In this case, the violent acts of the Weathermen definitely led to all other Left groups - even peaceful - being targeted by COINTELPRO.    One could therefore say, with some plausibility, the aggressive surveillance of the Occupy Wall Street groups as well as infiltration of Socialists in the Springs by local cops is a carryover of that mindset.


But one also shouldn't be surprised  that Socialists nationwide would insist on much more respect after a Democratic Socialist (named Bernie Sanders)  had run in the 2016  presidential campaign - and won some 20 -odd states in the Democratic primaries. 

It was therefore not too surprising that - as reported by the  Indy-  the COS Socialists "hired the powerhouse civil rghts firm:  Killmer, Lane & Newman LLP out of Denver. They  filed a motion to dismiss based on “outrageous police misconduct,” arguing police violated federal regulations when they infiltrated a group with no history of or clear intent to commit violence. "

According to testimony by the two undercover police and Metro VNI Lt. Mark Comte at the Dec. 6 evidentiary hearing, the intelligence-gathering operation began early this year, when they became interested in local leftists based on “national trends” — particularly the proliferation of black bloc, a tactic most closely associated with anti-fascism (Antifa) in which protesters wear black and mask up to hide individual identities from law enforcement, disapproving employers and/or right-wing enemies.

Hyper wary of the Socialists (who have nada to do with Antifa)  Comte sent “Mark” and “Amy” to an open meeting, organized by the Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists, in the back room of the downtown Wild Goose Meeting House in January. The meeting was organized to plan how to “shut down” right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos during his scheduled appearance at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. (Yiannopoulos as most know is a convicted sex offender who goes around the country gaslighting everyone and everything a la Steve Bannon's playbook).

There,  according to the Indy account:  “Mark” said he heard some attendees propose rushing the stage and disabling the sound system. During cross-examination, he told David Lane, lead defense attorney, that pulling power cords could be considered violent in his opinion. That particular proposal was never incorporated into the group’s plan and the protest was nonviolent. Despite that, the undercover operation continued.

As for why an interest in Antifa would lead to surveillance of Socialists, the prosecution argued "there’s ambiguity and overlap between the memberships."   Of course, this is bare balderdash. The only "overlap" is that both often wear black.  So the Socialists' lawyers had to point out the distinct differences, namely that Antifa tends to align with anarchism, i.e. they want to abolish the state, while the Socialists are mainly Marxist-Leninists.

That means they WANT the state to be expanded, i.e. to take over industrial, health, and other operations for the betterment of all. This , as opposed to having national institutions, pensions, and even water supplies and utilities privatized by greedy capitalists - impoverishing and exploiting even more millions of hapless citizens  As one of the seated Socialists pointed out for the peanut gallery regarding differences with Antifa: “We don’t even like each other.”

Note, Antifa - in addition to the differences from Socialists noted above-  doesn’t, in fact, have members. It’s instead a zeitgeist, a motive cultural -social tendency, not a fixed  organization with a charter, membership list and objectives - like the COS Socialists.  The spy cops didn't get this difference so naturally conflated the Antifas with the Socialists. As Mark put it, quoted by the Independent

“[I saw] him show up to a protest wearing black bloc clothing,”  

Well, let us hope there are no Baltimore Ravens' fans hanging around the Springs, because their normal NFL gear is black jackets and/or sweatshirts along with caps and slacks to match. 

I mean, we wouldn't now want local Ravens' football fans (like wifey) to be lumped in with Antifa and Socialists as well.

Fortunately, Judge Kristen L. Hoffecker is expected to rule on the defense’s motion to dismiss in the coming weeks. Once that's finished the Socialists can continue fielding more candidates for the  Ds in the 2018 midterms, having already taken one seat in VA last month. Socialists are also busy training hundreds more to vie for spots on school boards, especially in Florida - where a large Puerto Rican diaspora (from the hurricane disaster that Trump ignored) have poured in by the hundreds of thousands. This means a "revenge vote" will be forthcoming and ensure whatever Dem presidential candidate (maybe Socialist Bernie Sanders) unseats dumb fuck traitor Dotard.

On the other positive side, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are now grooming dozens of candidates to run in the mid terms, following the success in the recent primaries - including Virginia.

See also:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/10/what_democratic_socialist_lee_carter_s_upset_win_suggests_about_the_left.html

WHO Are The Real "Snow Flakes"? Conservos, Of Course!

"Waaaah!  Da Dems is mekkin' me cwy bout Donald!"


A trope making the rounds in much of the media is that there is a certain coddled enclave of college kids who are terrified by certain speeches, and go wacko insane with protests. The examples include the responses of University of California, Berkeley students  to Milo Yiannopoulos and Middlebury students to Charles Murray - both  trotted out as evidence.

The term "snow flake" has been used disparagingly to refer to those students who apparently demand quarantines from diverse political opinions .   Thus, just as a snow flake easily melts so too do these Left- leaning students when confronted by hard right positions that some claim elicit "micro aggressions".  But not so fast.

First, there is the massive error of selection bias in the Right's narrative and reporting.  No where is it referenced that literally thousands of on campus lectures occur across the ideological spectrum every year with no kerfuffle or controversy. Millions of students from east coast to west go to their classes, participate in various organizations and attend lectures without incident. Imagine then how many times Murray, Coulter or Shapiro have delivered lectures without controversy.  This indicates the attention to the few explosive protests - especially by the left - distorts the narrative because it takes no note of the thousands of lectures that went off with no issues. Sadly, conservative columnists (like Holman Jenkins, Marc Thiessen and Michelle Malkin) would have us believe raucous protests are the norm when they are the exception.

Second, the selective focus on the snow flake is even more askew than depicted. Is it really true that all the snow flakes exist on the left? I don't believe so. In fact, the bulk of evidence indicates the Right, including Alt-Right, are even more sensitive about bold political speech than the Left.  Any time a call is made for stronger gun regulation - such as after the Vegas massacre-  watch their bonkers reactions. (Including stocking up on all the AR-15s, ammo, and 9 mm Glocks they can carry home.)

In the wake of the massive town meeting health care protests - during which "Trump Care" and the abolition of the ACA was being vigorously protested- the Right's gnomes, such as in ND,  even wanted to pass laws making such protests "illegal assemblies".  How snowflake can you get?

Consider also the case of Wisconsin where Governor Scott Walker and his rubber stamp lawmakers are considering "campus free speech" legislation to curb the right to free speech on the left. This would be passed in order to protect the tender little ears of conservatives from speech they may not wish to hear. Such as the truth that the denial of contraception access via the ACA will definitely lead to more abortions.  Or the truth that there is absolutely no justifiable use for semi-automatic weapons other than to slaughter other  humans.  Ugh! Can't say that!

Or, consider Donald Trump - perhaps the biggest snow flake of all -  understandable given his unstable, fragile and immature temperament combined with his woeful lack of even basic knowledge. For example, after seeing press reports of Sen. Corker's remarks about the White House being an "adult day care center" (see my Oct. 11  post)  he blurted out on Twitter that he would consider "repealing licenses for the media". He was totally unaware that no such licenses exist nor could he do that even if they did exist. He is not a dictator, after all, though he appears not to grasp even that.

Then there was Dotard's intolerance at the sight of NFL players exercising their free speech rights by not standing for the anthem. Never mind these protests were not about the flag or anthem per se, they were the vehicle for getting attention to uneven racial treatment in the country.  But their use should not have been questioned by a snowflake like the Dotard. (And now even some spineless, wishy- washy owners - like Jerry Jones asserting they will fire or suspend players who refuse to stand.)

So the Right's hurling of the "snow flake" derogatory sounds damned near close to a selective defense of free speech to me.  I.e. you either adhere to OUR version of free speech, e.g. being able to carry guns to ACA protests, OR you are a snow flake!

I  say, if you can't handle NFL players kneeling for the anthem in a protest you can't bitch about college kids ripping into Coulter, Murray and Yiannopoulos .  Also relevant here is what Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber recently conveyed to his entering class:

"The art of disagreement is not only about confrontation, but also about learning. It requires that we defend our views...and, at the same time, consider whether our views might be mistaken."

This is a crucial observation and bears emphasis. It also allows us to question the validity of any speech for which no learning is possible, or  speakers who challenge the values that make such learning possible. Such speakers, say like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos tend to use a university's commitment to free exchange to promote positions that threaten the fabric of society as a whole.  As an extreme example, one can cite the Nazis marching in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us!"

Or take Ann Coulter's indefensible remark at the CPAC conference in 2002:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed."

The Right media columnists' claim that instead of vigorous protesting (including blocking) we are obliged to "argue"  with such hateful dreck is imbecilic. How can I reasonably argue with someone like Coulter who wants to intimidate me with a death threat? It is the intellectual equivalent of saying "Kiss my ass!"

What we have then from Rightist hacks like Marc Thiessen is a rhetorical sleight of hand claiming it is "intolerant" to inveigh aggressively against intolerant speech and essentially disallow it.  We are instead expected to put on our numskull caps and graciously extend equal standing and dignity to hateful claptrap issuing from the likes of Coulter or Yiannopoulos. In other words, we are never ever to sanction a callous disregard of democratic norms via callousness. As I pointed out in previous posts this is nonsense given Hitler used this very idiom to secure power in the Reichstag - then proceeded to destroy democracy in the Enabling Act.

Now, it is true not all conservative speech is hateful speech and we owe it to ourselves to make that distinction. Truth be told most conservos aren't like Coulter, Richard Spencer or Yiannopoulos. But if they DO hold toxic views, in whatever guise, they will have to expect passionate displays and protests given those view are antithetic to free speech itself since they are based on intolerant memes.  This means students have every right to push back aggressively against hateful speech that is itself self-defeating and worthy of no argument or dignity.

Some conservatives like Thiessen want to proselytize their hate without pushback and exact judgment without themselves being judged - but this is a no go. A non-starter.  Why? Because when they are aptly called "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" they clutch their pearls and cry 'Foul!'  In such an instance one must question who the real snow flakes are.

The new standard clearly is that if you can't handle aggressive pushback when you come out with hateful and ignorant dreck, then maybe you aren't really about actual speech at all.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/07/was-splc-wrong-to-educate-middlebury.html