Dave Neiwert at Orincus recently wrote a blog post describing how rabid, right-wing talk show host Hal Turner was outed as an FBI agent when hackers found incriminating emails on his server. Neiwert cites a report from the SPLC that says in part:
On Jan. 1, unidentified hackers electronically confronted Turner in the forum of his website for "The Hal Turner Show." After a heated exchange, they told Turner that they had successfully hacked into his server and found correspondence with an FBI agent who is apparently Turner's handler. Then they posted an alleged July 7 E-mail to the agent in which Turner hands over a message from someone who sent in a death threat against Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.). "Once again," Turner writes to his handler, "my fierce rhetoric has served to flush out a possible crazy." In what is allegedly a portion of another E-mail, Turner discusses the money he is paid.

On Thursday, as the E-mail exchange was heatedly discussed on a major neo-Nazi website, Turner suddenly announced he was quitting political work. "I hereby separate from the 'pro-White' movement," he said, adding that he was ending his radio show immediately. "I will no longer involve myself in any aspect of it."
Paid agents who spread disinformation is a topic we return to over and over again at SOTT and on our forum. Why is it that people are so gullible, that they refuse to admit the possibility? The use of provocateurs goes back thousands of years. Why should we think it is any different today, or that it only happens elsewhere?

Hal Turner's job was to be a right-winger nutzoid agent, but there are such agents on the left, in the so-called 911 Truth Movement, and in every other channel by which information is broadcast and transmitted. Disinformation is pervasive. It is the water in which we swim every day. The water is filled with sharks who play whatever tune they are are paid to play.

The only way to see it is to be aware that it exists and to THINK! We have to use our critical capacities and understand the system in which we live. The system is controlled by powerful forces that act through corporations, government, intelligence agencies, police forces and the courts, the education system, and on and on. Why would they leave alone alternative news sources, sources that could potentially work to unite normal people against the pathocrats?

They would never leave such channels free. On the contrary, they would spend large sums of money to control them to ensure that the only news that people receive keeps them within the bounds that are permissible in the pathocracy. Opposition must be controlled. People need to have the appearance of free speech and of a certain choice in where they get their information. That is just part of the capitalist marketplace that promotes the illusion that it is your choice in what you consume that makes you free. News and information are no different. But that means that even news and information that appears to be oppositional must really be held within certain acceptable boundaries.

That is why critical thought and analysis are so important. Nothing can be accepted at face value. Just because someone claims that they are in opposition doesn't mean that he or she really is. If they are not exposed, they become Pied Pipers leading their followers deeper and deeper into the swamp. Anger at current policies and injustices can be used and then spent to fuel pointless and even dangerous responses that accomplish nothing positive and that in fact simply make the situation worse and feed into the long-term plans of the pathocrats.

An example is what Neiwert calls "exterminationist rhetoric": the calls to violence that we hear from so many right wing talking heads. Turner may have gone far beyond what we hear from the pundits on Fox News, but he lays the groundwork and pushes the boundaries.

As part of his job, Hal Turner took positions were extreme, calling for people to take the law in their own hands up to the point of murder. He was being paid out of your pocket books and wallets. However, his rhetoric was just a bit more extreme than the nonsense one hears from Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter when they also speak of violence against liberals, even if they claim they are joking and shrug it off. Turner paves the way, pushing the limit on what is permissible. It is a dangerous game.

And he was doing it as his job for the FBI.

Moreover, it only takes a few agents like Turner to influence others, to set an agenda, to set an example on what is permissible and what is not in terms of "exterminationist rhetoric". Such extremes can be used to justify paramoralisms from the mouths of the likes of Malkin and Coulter.

When psychopaths and other deviants assume the major roles in society, we all become infected by their conscienceless world view. It permeates every corner of life from politics to professional sport, from entertainment to the education system. To pull oneself out of it is hard work. It means being continually aware.

There are people, like former FBI agent Mike German cited in the Neiwert peice, who then call for a public airing of questions, because they are shocked that the FBI or the government would go so far:
Potok also spoke with Mike German, a former undercover FBI agent whose work I once covered. "This certainly raises a whole lot of questions that need to be answered in a public forum," he said. "There are strict rules about what an informant is allowed to do, and certainly encouraging or instigating others to commit acts of violence is far beyond what FBI agents should have their informants doing. Aside from the fact that you're possibly encouraging someone to commit an act of violence, there's also the danger that you're actually entrapping that person, which means he would get off."
German would like to draw a line somewhere between informants and provocateurs. He thinks the first are necessary while the second go too far. But isn't the idea of informants itself pretty sick? Doesn't it suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with society?

Neiwert concludes his article with:
This deserves to be a significant scandal. We'll see if the press can divert its attention long enough from Britney Spears to bring it to the public's attention.
The answer to Neiwert's rhetorical question is obvious. Of course not.

But until one understands the true nature of the US political and economic system, that it is completely pathological, one will not realize that such appeals will amount to nothing. That is why information such as this must be put into the larger context as we attempt to do here at SOTT. Until one is able to look at the reality as it is and see the true depth of the horror, until the truth of the unmitigated terror of our situation has knocked the wind out of one's gut, we will continue to look for solutions that are part of the problem and well within the official limits set by the pathocrats for what the opposition may or may not do.

But don't think I am suggesting we need to take arms. This is not a battle cry for revolution, for revolution, too, falls within the bounds of what is permitted. One group of deviants replacing another doesn't change anything in the long run, it merely perpetuates the myth that violence is the answer and reinforces the enslavement of normal people to the pathocrats.

The first step in real change is to understand what normal people are up against. For that, there is no better place to start than the book Political Ponerology, A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes by Andrew Łobaczewski available from Red Pill Press.