vda

Are You Talking to a Agent Provocateur?

by David Hathaway
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/david-hathaway/are-you-talking-to-a-agent-provocateur/

Note: The Libertarian Alliance is, so far as I can tell, an agent provocateur-free zone. The probable reasons are as follows: 1) we are not perceived as a threat; 2) the British State is spending all its security budget on watching excitable teenagers in Leicester; c) both of the above. SIG

Are You Talking to a Agent Provocateur?

The imagined look and persona of an agent provocateur in most peopleโ€™s minds probably couldnโ€™t be further from the truth. Most would probably picture the obscure, silent individual lurking in the back of the room while doing his best to conceal his identity and his movements. If you accept that image, you have also accepted the notion that the provocateur is really just peeking in on, documenting, and recording pre-existing criminal activities and shady plans going on around him. You havenโ€™t faced the reality that the whole show is the production of the provocateur.

Once you realize that the momentum, the force, the ideas, and the infrastructure of an event are suggested, put in motion, paid for, forcefully or charismatically insisted upon, managed, and facilitated by the provocateur, then you look to very different individuals when considering who is the stateโ€™s agent provocateur. Looking for those individuals causes you to look for those displaying the characteristics of a leader, a financial sponsor, an employer, a boss, an orchestrator, or a charismatic friend to a lonely person. Following are 11 characteristics that may be displayed by a provocateur.

1. Is at the front of the room. He is the most visible person in the activity. He is the center of everything; the lynchpin.

2. Is the biggest talker. He talks endlessly about illegal activity with no attempts to conceal his intended activity. The provocateur doesnโ€™t, as some must think, randomly stumble into a lot of evil debate societies where he is welcomed warmly into an open discussion of criminal conspiracies. On its face, that notion should be counter intuitive to most people based on their life experiences. Even private criminals rarely, if ever, speak specifically to anyone, even to their family or inner circle, about the details of criminal acts they plan to carry out. Talk is at a minimum and objectives are not openly stated but, understood. The provocateur, on the other hand, rants incessantly about criminal ventures and seeks head nodding, mumbling, smiling, or something that he can describe to prosecutors as assent to, or participation in, the planning of a conspiracy or the execution of a criminal act in furtherance of a conspiracy. Real criminals will quickly decide to get out of Dodge when confronted with a showy loud-mouth nut job that is either a cop or will get everyone thrown in the slammer. That leads us to the third characteristic.

3. Is fearless of the consequences. Most people fear financial harm, harm to their reputations, and physical harm like imprisonment or being shot. Not the provocateur. He has all of that covered. He has his get out of jail free card.

4. Pays more than things are worth. The provocateur often is not concerned about getting good value for his money. He often buys and pays for things or gives them away for free to his targets with no sense of quid pro quo. After all, it is not his money. It is taxpayer money. The government is never good at getting good value for the funds it spends. The same goes when provocateurs spend taxpayer money. They pay their targets too much for drugs, too much for bomb-making supplies, too much to rent a warehouse to store illegal material, and too much for their time. There is no sense of value for value. The over-spending is also an inducement to get targets to do things they wouldnโ€™t otherwise do. This is a strong signal that a provocateur is involved with something. Is somebody offering to rent a hotel room or a warehouse out of the blue for a venture that cannot be cost effective at the exorbitant rates being paid by the provocateur? This is not how the mafia or other private criminals think or act. It is a sign of state action.

5. Prefers to talk in his car or a hotel room. Cars and hotel rooms are often wired with audio and video before scheduled meetings. The provocateur tries to discourage discussions with the target in the targetโ€™s private controlled surroundings or outdoors where stray noises like traffic or wind will overwhelm a recording. He tries to draw the target to his car or another choreographed location (hotel room, warehouse, garage, etc.) in the theater production controlled by the provocateur.

6. May be very friendly. The provocateur may be very kind and overly interested in the target even though the target is an unlikely candidate for his friendship.

7. Often looks and acts like a member of a demonized group. Sometimes, the provocateur overtly displays the characteristics or talks the talk of a group that is being demonized by the state and the state supporting media. Say for example that gun owners, white supremacists, motorcycle clubs, militia members, devout religious practitioners, or persons of middle-eastern origin are in the crosshairs of state fear-mongering. Well then, it could be anticipated that the provocateur may be flaunting grossly exaggerated characteristics of those groups in conjunction with wild rhetoric that would make him a target of the feds; if he werenโ€™t already in cahoots with them. The more he fits the stereotypical image of that particular mythical dragon the government wants to slay, the more likely that he is putting on a costume to fit an adopted persona.

8. Isnโ€™t usually a government employee. You may think, โ€œI know this guy. I know heโ€™s scum, so I know he wouldnโ€™t be hired as a law enforcement officer because of his criminal history or other baggage.โ€ This sociopathic petty criminal neโ€™er-do-well is actually the type that is most often approached to be a provocateur. He is often approached by the government and offered an escape from the consequences of other activity he has been involved in. This, ironically, is also the type who has the most to gain, and the least to lose, by lying and distorting. A provocateur is often recruited on-the-fly and is told, sometimes with only moments of instruction from a government employee he just met, to arrange and carry out an event to bring in more defendants in order to save his skin. After he works his way out of a jam, he often keeps working for money since he now knows how to produce the desired results. Others are motivated only by the money they receive from the government.

Many provocateurs are โ€œunwittingโ€ lower tier provocateurs that are paid for their actions by another private provocateur who is receiving the funds directly from an actual government employee. This โ€œunwittingโ€ provocateur doesnโ€™t know he is working for the government. He will be paid by the primary provocateur to do things that the main provocateur doesnโ€™t want to do (like light a fuse and then run away from a truck) without knowing that the government is paying the bills.

Often the most damaging evidence at a trial is characterizations of individualsโ€™ motivations, statements, and actions. At that point, a government employee is usually called in as an โ€œexpert witnessโ€ to analyze, describe, and translate what it means when someone nods their head in sync with the person paying for the beer.

9. Persistence followed by silence. He may exhibit periods of aggressive non-stop interest followed by days of silence. He disappears. He canโ€™t be contacted. He doesnโ€™t answer phone or email. He was seemingly in a mad rush and anxious to conclude a suggested and planned-out transaction or event, despite any consideration of the cost but, then makes last minute lengthy delays while being incommunicado. That happens because he is conferring with overlords to arrange the final arrest details during the moments, or after the moments, when he provides illegal material or facilitates an immoral event that will become the โ€œovert act in the conspiracyโ€ needed by prosecutors. As law enforcement surveillance or arrest teams are put into place during various phases of the developing โ€œconspiracy,โ€ with all the delays of a bureaucracy, the provocateur drops all contact with targeted victims during crucial times after a deal has been paid for and set up by him. The underlings have been told what to do and when to do it but, canโ€™t find their boss during that crucial phase because he is lying low while pestering law enforcement teams who want more time to get ready. โ€œStall and delayโ€ is the message to the provocateur from his paymaster. When the provocateur has used up all his excuses and the eleventh hour has arrived, he often goes underground and waits for the arrest team to do their thing. After all, he doesnโ€™t want to get beat up and shot in the final H-hour bedlam when he is confused with the targets. Sometimes the underlings do what they were paid to do and initiate the act, light the fuse, pull the trigger, deliver the drugs, or complete the transaction anyway, as paid employees tend to do, after losing contact with their boss in the final hours leading up to an important crucial time-sensitive scheduled event.

10. Lies convincingly in a Captain America โ€œtruth test.โ€ There is folklore floating around amongst regular folk to the effect that undercover agents of the government must always tell the truth. After all, they will swear to tell the truth at trial. They probably took some sort of oath to tell the truth, didnโ€™t they? If you catch them in a lie, wonโ€™t that impeach their credibility on the witness stand and cause the case to be thrown out? This belief often leads the provocateurโ€™s victims to inquire, โ€œAre you a cop?โ€ Or, โ€œAre you working for the government in any way?โ€ The provocateurโ€™s answer of โ€œnoโ€ is often accepted as the correct answer to the G-Man โ€œtruth test.โ€ The belief that cops, like Vulcans, will always tell the truth is surprisingly still out there but, losing adherents.

11. Wears a hat. OK, funny right? There is a not-so-funny joke that floats around amongst undercover personnel that goes as follows: โ€œIf I ever think Iโ€™m getting set up, Iโ€™m going to ask the guy to take his hat off and then look around and see if the cavalry rushes in.โ€ Taking off the hat, or cap, or other headgear, has been a long-standing visual โ€œbust signalโ€ between provocateurs and surveillance teams. Not always but, more often than you would think. You might want to ask your new found generous friend to take off his hat and let you look at it because you would love one just like it.

So, in conclusion, if you look at postings on a forum and consider if someone in the discussion may be an undercover cop, then instead of considering who is the silent lurker avoiding the discussion, think more about the one who talks the most and makes brash inflammatory statements like โ€œkillโ€ or โ€œsmashโ€ or โ€œblood in the streets;โ€ the one who tries to set up meetings and intimidate those who are peaceful telling them that they arenโ€™t โ€œtrue patriots;โ€ the one who tries to discuss, provide, or email you disturbing images or questionable links so that they can be retrieved later from your computer via a โ€œcomputer forensics examinationโ€ to prove your deviance. If you receive emails or Facebook messages after writing an article or making a posting, are some of them aggressive or pushing for violence and seeking your involvement, your input, or your reaction to their odd suggestions? This is a sign of someone who has no fear of instigating and carrying out criminal activity because of his connections to those who would prosecute.

[[They arenโ€™t always bullying high pressure operators suggesting violence though. They also use the โ€œIโ€™m your friendโ€ tactic to get a lonely or impoverished person or substance addicted person to nod his head or parrot the provocateurโ€™s statements or to at least get the target to mumble something like โ€œuh-huhโ€ during an uncomfortable silence in a beer-drinking session after the provocateur has verbally mapped out a dastardly plan. That minimal recorded โ€œuh-huhโ€ has been the tool used against many, supposedly proving the defendantโ€™s โ€œbuy-inโ€ to the conspiracy.

As a final comment, most countries in the world do not allow agent provocateur activity. It is expressly prohibited. Rather, it is an established legal principle that a lying government agent involved in criminal activity misrepresenting himself to the other parties cannot be excluded as a defendant in any criminal conspiracy that is charged as a result of his action. Otherwise, the validity of the assent of the private parties to the conspiracy, or the existence of the conspiracy itself, would be in question. Being a lying provocateur is not an acceptable court defense in those places for state actors who arrange to ship drugs, blow people up, shoot people, etc. The U.S. is not one of those places.


Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

8 comments


  1. I think the writer is wrong in saying the provocateur will be the most aggressive in his wish to incite acts of violence, etc. Most people who might be targets of this approach are wary of informers and provocateurs, and would become suspicious of anyone who appears too hot-headed. Rather, a provocateur who is good at his job will master the art of leading his targets to extreme acts by subtle suggestion, in such a way that the latter will not perceive how he is being led and influenced.

    I suppose the ideal scenario from the provocateur’s point of view would be for him to work in tandem with another who acts as a decoy – a person who deliberately displays the signs of being a provocateur and makes himself the focus of suspicion. His colleague could then boost his own credentials by openly expressing suspicion of him.


  2. At one time people laughed at things like this; they don’t laugh so much now. I have written extensively on this. See in particular my book “Liars Ought To Have Good Memories”, what I wrote about Column 88, Mark Kennedy and others. I also added a video to Archive.Org of police agents provocateurs at work in Canada. They were trying to cause havoc on a march but a trade union activist realised they were all wearing the same type of boot and stopped them.

    I also have personal experience of this, but for legal reasons can’t write about it here. At least not yet.


  3. There is an interesting case in New York City presently.

    One of a motorcycle gang that viciously beat up a motorist turned out to be undercover policeman.

    His defence is that he did NOT suggest the attack – and had to take part in it to avoid “blowing his cover”. A lot of people think this is not a sufficiently good defence – we shall have to see how it turns out.

    As for actually suggesting a crime – the idea (of the AP – originally an invention of the French policy in Paris in the 19th century) is to get people whom one suspects of being criminals by dangling temptation in front of their noses.

    If they really are honest people they will turn away from the AP with disgust – if they are not ……. (then one has them – and criminals are off the street).

    HOWEVER if the crime actually happens and innocent people are hurt….. then many court decisions (including some in the United States – although some other cases contradict) indicate that the AP (and those who sent him or her) is also guilty.

    It is a very dangerous game (a very dangerous game indeed) not just the AP but the people he is she is talking to must be monitored (at all times).

    After all the people the AP is talking to may say “that is a good idea, but this man has a big mouth – we will take up his idea but NOT include him in the operation” then the crime goes ahead and innocent people are hurt.

    If the AP is left out of the crime (the crime he or she suggested) then they can not inform anyone when the crime is taking place – and no arrests can be made in time.

    Overall my judgement is that the idea of the AP is generally a bad policy – such operations have too high a chance of going horribly wrong.


  4. Has something been kicking off in Leicester then? I don’t follow local news anymore.


  5. The probable reasons are as follows: 1) we are not perceived as a threat…

    There’s a very simple way to alter that. Nemo tamen palam loquebatur de illo, propter metum Iukiporum.


    • “Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of UKIP”? That is a near-blasphemous misquotation of John 7:13.

Leave a Reply