Left-wing agitators have an infiltrator problem

Oath Keepers is a sometimes controversial organization, but it also espouses several causes with which many of us would agree.  It appears to have infiltrated a number of far-left and progressive organizations behind recent anti-Trump demonstrations.  One of their 'operators' has provided some details.

In my case, it took quite a while to become accepted into the groups that I was responsible for observing. I think a lot of this was because I am a little bit older than our other operatives. I dyed my hair and bought clothing appropriate for the assignment. By actually participating in a large number of protest activities, I was eventually “recruited” into a series of organizations with increasing levels of responsibility. It took a month of steady involvement before any of the really hard-core group leaders would even talk to me. My military and post-active duty DoD experience was extremely valuable.

I learned to behave as they behave and to “trigger” on appropriate issues. I also learned that the brain-washing that moves people into these organizations is mostly external to the organizations themselves. The people joining are brain-washed by numerous sources before they even participate in their first protest or direct action. The MSM, our colleges and universities, social media and leftist alternative news organizations are the primary sources of the initial brain-washing that is taking place. The radicalization process is unique to each person, but generally follows a pattern of being very rapid for those with little or no responsibilities in their daily life to long and laborious for those with a real life outside of the movement. Young, under-employed single white males are the vanguard of these movements.

There's more at the link.  Worthwhile reading.

The 'operator' claims that information was provided to several police forces and federal agencies, leading to some successes against the targeted organizations.  One worrying factor is that some forces appeared to ignore the information.

Of the major police departments we have worked with, Cleveland, Philadelphia and New York City were by far the most responsive. These departments appreciated the information we provided and took affirmative action to prevent property damage and violence. The Police Departments in cities including Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago and Cincinnati were receptive to our reports but faced political pressure that may have undermined the overall effectiveness of our efforts. The police departments of Baltimore and Washington DC were severe disappointments. In every case except for one where we reported plans that could result in damage or injury, these departments took no preemptive or preparatory actions.

That figures.  The last two organizations named - or, perhaps more accurately, the city administrations controlling them - are notorious for their 'socially relevant' and 'progressive' stances on law enforcement.  People visiting those cities would do well to take note, and plan accordingly.

Peter