Bill White On Federal Informants
[This article was written during the time several years ago when Bill was released on the grounds that his internet comments were covered by the First Amendment, before a Jewish judge ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to William A. White on account of his "inherently violent and criminal audience," meaning all you guys reading this blog right now, and White was dragged back to prison, this time apparently for life. This may have been one of the articles that prompted that decision on the part of the dictatorship; the main purpose of Bill's re-imprisonment, insofar as there seems to be any other than pure personal vindictiveness and malice, is to try to force him to shut up. - HAC]
BILL WHITE ON INFORMANTS
How Federal Informants Work
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 possible 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.
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 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 claim to 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. For instance, in an interstate murder-for-hire, the informant is instructed to tell the target that their codeword will be "to paint the house." This is one way we know the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador is a fraud. A few years ago, several White Revolution members were drawn into a plot to rob drug dealers -- stealing and selling fake drugs by robbing a stash house is another standard federal script.
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.
- MP is a mentally ill man in Indiana. He became involved in an anti-immigrant organizing group. He has written that 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.
- 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."
- Violent skinhead groups were a concern to the dictator's secret police. 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.
- MR joined the Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He used a fake name, calling himself JR, because he knew no one would check. One day, he was asked to distribute literature by the Klan boss at a county fair. While there, he incited two Klansmen he was with to attack a Filipino. The incident was widely reported as a hatecrime, and the two Klansmen were convicted, while the Klan was bankrupted. The media and the feds made claims about a hatecrime and MR, who manufactured the crime, moved on to another organization.
- BH was a deep cover federal informant. He did office work for DD, a prominent white politician, for years. Then he joined a major "Nazi" group. He agitated against the legitimate members, and worked his way to chief security. His major role was reviewing membership applications. He was only revealed when the FBI fired him.
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 hatecrimes for political purposes, and placing members in leadership positions to guide and monitor organizations. This is what is known as institutional or state-sponsored terrorism, and it is a large part of what the FBI does nowadays and virtually all of what the Department of Homeland Security does.
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.
The FBI always tries to disrupt or control legitimate political and business activity. Their informants are usually -- but not always -- ignorant people without marketable skills. People with professional skills and family ties rarely take the risk of involvement in spying on others -- they are too focused on their own advancement.
My experience is that FBI agents always portray a Jewish caricature of the movements they infiltrate as well. They may play the skinhead thug; rarely will they play the New Right intellectual. This has been changing lately -- the FBI has made efforts to recruit smart people -- but without much success. The average informant believes in nothing; people with beliefs are harder to flip.
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.
To determine if someone received these things, use PACER, PACER.gov is the US federal court website. All documents filed in federal court are available here. They may be under seal -- but the type of document will be described. So, you may not be able to read the Rule 35 -- but you can see if it was filed. Further, unsealed pleadings often reference sealed pleadings, or discuss the background of a case.
You can be 100% assured that if a person cooperates on a federal case, you can pull their PACER file and discover evidence of their cooperation. Hearing transcripts are public documents, as are pleadings -- anyone can look these things up.
The federal government of the United States arrests and tortures people for political reasons. To justify its policies, it needs a steady stream of terrorism and hatecrimes. Because there is very little real terrorism and few actual hatecrimes, federal law enforcement manufactures both.
The people it targets are often vulnerable and ignorant -- they are angry people too stupid, sometimes, to understand they are breaking the law, or too disabled, often, by addiction or mental illness to say no. The FBI does not hesitate to coke someone up, drive them to the US Capitol, hand them a bomb, and tell them to shout al-Qaeda, and then use this to justify everything from anti-Islamic repression to aggression overseas.
Similarly, they didn't hesitate to give McVeigh and Nichols detonators and then use Oklahoma City to justify gun control and acts against "domestic extremism." The FBI's security actions are a real threat to legitimate and legal political activism.
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. MP has openly discussed his regular meetings with law enforcement. In my case, an individual, VB, openly went on message boards discussing information he provided on me to the federal government.
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.
[The Five Words: "I have nothing to say." - HAC]
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.
For instance, I sat in on the infamous KS trial. I watched a nine year-old girl and her mother testify KS was hiding in the bushes outside the girl's school, and saw the receipt for the pink angora sweater KS sent her -- and I've seen Stanley Kubrick's Lolita and I know what the sweater means. I saw the photos of Lamb and Lynx Gaede Photoshopped onto lesbian porn. I know KS is a pedophile.
Those are specific allegations -- I give details of what I know, how I know, and why I believe as I do. Someone else could get the court record and disprove it. No one does, because it's true.
Compare that to all the world's other allegations. 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. For instance, I disliked KS before his arrest for child porn. My first-hand account should be corroborated. Other white activists should have attended his trial. However, there are media accounts and there are court records. There is also KS's guilty plea.
First-person accounts should be considered a jumping-off point for further investigation. We should ask for details and investigate why someone believes something -- then gather evidence.
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. I didn't accuse HT of involvement in my case until he was alleged to have said at his trial he accused me of plotting to assassinate Obama with a truck bomb. I then obtained his trial transcript, and read the evidence presented. Later, a report on his statements was released to my trial counsel in Chicago. Similarly, I attended KS' trial to find the truth.
In contrast, at one point, an effort was made to persuade me DJ and PA were informants. At first, I wrongfully believed this. Later, I read the FBI reports and determined they were not informants. I heard PA testify at trial. I have publicly apologized to DJ. There was an allegation, I jumped to conclusions without proof, and I retracted and apologized.
There are many people I dislike in the White movement. HS is one example. HS once argued KS was okay because a sexual interest in pre-teen girls was normal. I disagree. HS often makes a point of calling me names on message boards, or making false allegations. I suspect HS is a pedophile -- and so I often mention his professed interest in little girls. I do not call HS a Jew or an informant. He denies he made these statements; I direct people to the archives and I block him. This is an appropriate way to deal with this kind of bizarre behavior.
So, allegations without evidence have to stop -- as do efforts to deny or obfuscate evidence. Certain characters decade after decade seek to "return" to the movement by tearing down those who know the truth about them. All one can do is repeat the truth and move on.
The "So What" Factor
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.
However, there is the "so what" factor. One example:
GJ is a homosexual. He is also a very intelligent guy who has produced a lot of good white material and who "gets" Savitri Devi and Tradition. He has also launched a successful and needed publishing operation. Should he be driven out of the white movement?
My thought on this was no, until GJ stole money and the membership list of CMS and then blackmailed them into not complaining. He then moved on to try to scam money from a friend of mine, and, I discovered, he had scammed others. This made me think he was not acceptable for the White movement.
My point is this: homosexuality is a sign of a mental disorder. Homosexuals, like other mentally ill people, are often less honest than other people. Thus, should homosexuality be seen as a warning sign for theft? Should we exclude homosexuals altogether, even when they are discreet about it, as GJ is?
Usually, this is not a question. White nationalism attracts a large number of homosexual men and extreme S&M fetishists. Usually, these characters are very extreme and very forthright. Many uniformed "National Socialist" marches are, for many, a species of gay pride parade. People who cannot keep extreme sexual perversions -- homosexuality, urine and feces obsessions, extreme brutality -- quiet should not be in White organizations. People who are keeping them quiet should not be in public roles.
AP ran a prominent white record company. His project was successful and contributing to the white movement, but he was a little swarthy. One day, a Jewish homosexual group exposed the fact that his birth certificate said he was half-mestizo. The White movement ran the guy out. This was wrong. We should have said "so what?"
[I disagree with this. We can't have muds in the Movement, but this is Bill's article. - HAC]
We know that 22,000 genes -- 2% of our DNA -- is primarily responsible for our physical development. There are an average 2200 points of difference between whites and blacks. There are an average 900 points of difference between whites and yellows or browns. If AP was half-mestizo, merely being mestizo means at least half-white and half American indigenous. He would have had about 225 points of difference with an average white- less than someone who was one-eighth black. He is approaching the normal range of variation between white ethnicities and individuals.
Given the contribution, did the drawback overwhelm it?
[I say yes. We have to be ABOUT something, and that includes certain standards, but now is not the time and place for this discussion. - HAC]
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?" DD is a womanizer -- but an amazing organizer, writer, and speaker. So, we ask ourselves -- does the womanizing matter? RP is a coward -- he publicly disavows us -- but holds public office and furthers our goals. Should he be shunned for that?
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.
I reduced names here to initials to avoid attacking anyone. Perhaps a publisher will want to use fake names. The names, in this context, do not matter.
I am no longer involved in white political activity. [He is now, courtesy of the dictator's secret police. If they'd just left Bill alone he probably would have wandered off completely into mysticism and introspection by now. - HAC] 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.a
Notice in particular this statement:
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.
Next time you see a meeting of extreme political types, whether on the left or right, think of this.
The guy who is loudly bloviating about "action!" and "revolution!" is probably an informant.
The guy he's making fun of, who advocates starting up a business to ingratiate the movement with the surrounding community, is probably the real deal.