FBI to Students: Watch Out! Socialists Are TOTALLY Gay.

A footnote to J.D. Tuccille's item earlier today about the activists who in 1971 broke into an FBI office, lifted a lot of files, and used them to expose COINTELPO, a program devoted to surveilling, infiltrating, and disrupting political groups. If you're at all interested in this chapter in the history of government abuses, you should spend some time exploring those old COINTELPRO files, which the government has now posted online. I spent a lot of time reading them when I was writing The United States of Paranoia, and they're filled with schemes that are alternately frightening, stupid, and simply bizarre.

Here's a relatively mild example. In 1971, when the Young Socialist Alliance ended a policy barring gays from the group, the FBI's San Diego office responded by creating these fliers:

We're not the gay set, we're the old Chevrolet set.

A second flier, featuring female names, announced that the organization was "now accepting 'les' membership."

We bugged the tiger, boss, and you won't believe the stuff we've heard.Headquarters approved: "Bureau feels preparation of leaflets as requested in relet has merit, and you are authorized to duplicate sufficient copies on commercially obtained paper to have posted on various bulletin boards where they might be seen by majority of students at San Diego State College. It is hopeful this action will have desired effect of dissuading would-be new recruits from membership in YSA." Because that, apparently, was the FBI's mission: to play on people's bigotries to dissuade them from joining a political organization.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • playa manhattan||

    "A footnote to Jerry Tuccille's item earlier today"

    2 Chili's name is Jerry? I did not know that.

  • ||

    Interesting that the phone numbers look like they were written by a Chinese or Japanese.

  • playa manhattan||

    That's supposed to be gay handwriting.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    You mean they're working together?

  • ||

    There are no gay Chinese. That's why there's like 2 billion of them.

  • Zeb||

    I thought they just reproduced by spontaneous fission.

  • Loki||

    I always thought they just sprang out of holes in the ground. Oh wait, that's dwarves. Nevermind.

  • ||

    You're thinking of the soldiers in Xian.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Don;t confuse Maoist tract with reality.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I guess legible can mean "gay," but the really odd thing here is it was 1971 when the collectives across America were well into their "smash monogamy" campaigns, which included edicts for asexual adventures. I point again to Mark Rudd's book "Underground."

    The collectives, from the Diggers to the Weathermen express that it was wholly an internal affair, but it defies belief that they all did it at the same time without any external coordination.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    How horrible!!

    ...I guess?

    If the flier is distributing accurate information, what is so bad about this? It is stupid and juvenile, but not very objectionable from a NAP standpoint IMO.

  • ||

    It's objectionable first and foremost because they're attempting to interfere with the operation of a (presumably) non-violent domestic political group, which is unconscionable. Because they try to do it using bigotry is merely a footnote and an example of what juvenile little shits they were.

  • playa manhattan||

    This little project is the grandfather of more recent operations like the one arresting mentally disabled high school students for selling weed to under covers.

  • ||

    In a way, it's actually worse, though. The operations arresting mentally disabled high school students for selling weed are ludicrous, but they theoretically have the fig leaf of following the law (getting currently illegal drugs off the streets!). Putting up flyers to try and use bigotry to interfere with the recruitment of a non-violent, perfectly legal political organization has no legal justification whatsoever. They're both repulsive, but how do you even justify the fliers to a rational person?

    (It's probably pretty hard to justify the weed busts to a rational person too, but you get my point.)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think the weed busts are worse. In one case, you are compelling a minor to break the law in cases where consent is less than clear, where the law is less than NAP-compliant in the first place, and where it is unclear that the "crime" would have occurred absent government agents in the first place.

    In the other case, you're distributing stupid fliers with accurate (if irrelevant and juvenile) content with the intent of dissuading membership in a group on the part of consenting adults. No harm is done, and the only consequence is social opprobrium (which is itself not the result of the government agents in question). Do note, the only way the latter works at all is if the person is already convinced of the logic, "X is bad if it is associated with homosexuals".

  • JW||

    No harm is done

    How is the state interfering with your right to free association not harm?

    Do note, the only way the latter works at all is if the person is already convinced of the logic, "X is bad if it is associated with homosexuals".

    It works very well if the public attitude towards homosexuality was very negative, which it was in 1971, and you don't want to be known, supposedly, to be associating with gays.

    And it still doesn't change the fact that it was none of the government's fucking business to begin with.

  • ||

    How is a goddamn violation of the 1st Amendment--attempting to interfere with free association--not harmful? It's a fucking Constitutional violation!

  • Almanian!||

    *sigh*

    The only "rights" that matter are:

    1) teh aborshunz
    2) the GAIZ gettin' hitched
    3) illegal immigrants getting law degrees and being allowed to practice legally.

    Duh! First Amendment....pffff!

  • Zeb||

    I think there is a different kind of harm. The drug busts directly and acutely harm an innocent person. The gay fliers certainly do cause harm, but a type of harm that is much harder to put your finger on.

  • Zeb||

    The weed busts are way worse in terms of doing direct harm to individuals. But, as Epi pointed out, they are legal in some perverse sense. One of the proper functions of government (if you are into that sort of thing) is to enforce laws on the books.
    But government interfering with nonviolent political activity crosses a different line that is far more sinister than assholes enforcing bad laws.
    I don't know if I can really say which is worse.

  • Jesse Walker||

    It's objectionable first and foremost because they're attempting to interfere with the operation of a (presumably) non-violent domestic political group, which is unconscionable. Because they try to do it using bigotry is merely a footnote and an example of what juvenile little shits they were.

    That's it exactly. I'll add that not every COINTELPO operation involved accurate information: Agents often spread false rumors about their targets. In some cases—e.g., claiming that someone was a snitch—those rumors put people's lives at risk.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    "those rumors put people's lives at risk."

    It seems to me that if this is the case then they aren't dealing with a non-violent group.

  • ||

    Let's take that as true; but false rumors can ruin lives, break up relationships, and are pretty much a disgusting tactic that, once again, there is literally no legal (or especially moral) justification for.

    These FBI agents were running around fucking with anyone they wanted to, if those people came on their radar. Fucking with them in incredibly invasive ways. And how many people "deserved" it? Who could even make that determination?

    This shit is a perfect example of what has led us to where we are today, and it's ugly as fuck.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    That's all true enough too, Epi.

  • Jesse Walker||

    It seems to me that if this is the case then they aren't dealing with a non-violent group.

    They targeted both violent and nonviolent groups.

  • GILMORE||

    Kid X =

    what you just said is the rationale used to capture 'terrorists' in the US by actively giving people weapons, targets, and encouraging them that jihad is the duty of all otherwise-peaceful muslims.

    As though the said instigation is not "engendering" the subsequent activity, but rather just "exposing" it?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I'm not attempting to justify anything, just noting the odd notion that being seen to betray a non-violent group would put someone's life at risk. On the other hand if the group is violent, then why not target it?

    You run into a logical problem when you say things like "this puts people's lives at risk." If I spread such a rumor campaign against a mafioso should I be blamed if his colleagues believe it and act accordingly?

  • Calidissident||

    Jesse made a general comment about COINTELPO, he didn't say that was applicable in this specific instance.

  • GILMORE||

    So when you read "to kill a mockingbird", you say to yourself, "I see nothing wrong with suggesting to an entire town that this particular black fella raped a white woman. They would likely have lynched him anyway, being the lynch-y types!"

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Your comment made me so angry, it's your fault if I punch someone.

  • GILMORE||

    "Kid Xenocles|1.7.14 @ 4:01PM|#

    Your comment made me so angry, it's your fault if I punch someone.

    More accurately = If I'd posted said comment under the name "SugarFree" and you subsequently jacked *him*, then YES, insofar that it was my comment you'd attributed to him and nothing he'd done on his own...

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I'm not attempting to justify anything, just noting the odd notion that being seen to betray a non-violent group would put someone's life at risk. On the other hand if the group is violent, then why not target it?

    You run into a logical problem when you say things like "this puts people's lives at risk." If I spread such a rumor campaign against a mafioso should I be blamed if his colleagues believe it and act accordingly?

  • Jesse Walker||

    Being seen to betray the Young Socialist Alliance wouldn't put your life at risk. Being seen to betray the Black Panthers might.

  • Enough About Palin||

    RACIST!!!

  • SIV||

    Trotskyites are non-violent?

  • Rasilio||

    The point you miss is the group may be non violent but contain violent members.

    Or the members themselves may generally be non violent but the rumor causes a verbal confrontation that escalates into a physical one which could in theory end in 1 or more deaths

  • SKR||

    just because a group is non-violent doesn't mean there couldn't be a violent individual within it.

  • playa manhattan||

    Given that the FBI just changed their primary mission statement, I expect a lot more of this behavior in the future.

  • ||

    Well, the FBI has long been in charge of domestic intelligence and couterintelligence since the CIA technically has no domestic charter, so it's really not that big of a change for them, it's just that they seem to be focusing on that aspect of their "duties" more now.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    they're attempting to interfere with the operation of a (presumably) non-violent domestic political group


    Are they, though? Per the OP, the order of operations is as follows:

    [YSF changes policy]

    [FBI makes fliers widely disbursing policy change, in juvenile fashion]

    [Profit?]

    If instead YSF had decided to honor Stalin in one of their meetings, and the FBI sign had said "Attention Stalin Lovers", would it have been objectionable per NAP? Of course not, it neither hurts anyone nor takes from them. It is accurate (if hyperbolic) in its contents. The only thing this sign does is take information which is already part of the public record and disburse it widely across a target audience. YSF was not compelled to bring about the policy change by the government, and the only way the disbursement of information would be harmful to the group is if there exists in society antagonism towards the views expressed.

    Should government be doing it? Not in my view, but that is a different question altogether from whether or not it is objectionable as an act. The only way such a thing can be objectionable is if we assume that a non-violent political group has a pre-existing right or expectation that its views be treated charitably by the public -- which is of course nonsense.

  • JW||

    It still doesn't change one thing: It's none of the govt's fucking business.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Like I said, that's a different question altogether than whether it is objectionable. I don't think it's in the government's charter to verbally endorse a brand of beer, but if government officials were to end all of their speeches by saying, "Miller Lite: why not enjoy a DMV-quality beer?", it wouldn't be morally objectionable -- just stupid and outside their charter.

    Objectionable = bad if either government or anyone else does it

    Government shouldn't be doing it = government shouldn't be doing it

  • JW||

    Why is it only objectionable if private parties do it too? Why the arbitrary standard?

    Either the state should be doing it or it shouldn't. Full stop. It's a binary situation, regardless of private actions.

    The fact that the state is doing it At. All. is what's objectionable. And that you see nothing wrong with the state arbitrarily deciding who its enemies are and fucking with their rights is downright disturbing.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't know how I can make my question any clearer:

    What rights are being fucked with, in this particular instance?

    If you can't state a concrete way in which this particular instance deprived someone of life, liberty, or property, then you have no basis on which to call this action objectionable as opposed to inappropriate.

    Put another way, if you really believe that this action was objectionable in and of itself then you can name the charge for which you would prosecute the government official responsible for the action. If you can't do that, then what you are really talking about is an action which falls outside the scope of government or that is just plain stupid (both of which describe this action), but not something that is objectionable from a NAP point of view.

  • ||

    If you can't state a concrete way in which this particular instance deprived someone of life, liberty, or property, then you have no basis on which to call this action objectionable as opposed to inappropriate.

    This is ridiculously stupid. How is your fear of the homos making you this stupid?

  • JW||

    What rights are being fucked with, in this particular instance?

    It's already been explained to you.

    If you can't state a concrete way in which this particular instance deprived someone of life, liberty, or property, then you have no basis on which to call this action objectionable as opposed to inappropriate.

    See above. *Any* state action against your rights is harm. Why you don't understand that simple concept is a mystery.

  • ||

    It's been said multiple times on this thread that it's a violation of their right to free association as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Secondly, I'd have to review it but it could entirely be a violation of the FBI's charter in terms of what it actually allowed to do.

    But the former is really all you need. If you can't get that...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    it's a violation of their right to free association

    How?! That is entirely my point, here. How does the existence of a sign which contains accurate information which is part of the public record violate anyone's freedom of association? I am not missing the part of the story where the group was rounded up for questioning, forbidden from meeting, told that they could not accept gays into membership, etc, right? It's just a damn flier! How does that translate into oppression? I am not a libertarian, but I do appreciate that the ideology allows for its adherents to clearly express why something is wrong according to first principles -- that being the case, I don't see why everyone is so reticent to provide an argument for *where*, exactly, the group's freedom of association is being violated.

    it could entirely be a violation of the FBI's charter in terms of what it actually allowed to do

    I agree entirely. In fact, even if it is part of the FBI's mandate it doesn't fall into what a classically liberl government should be doing.

  • ||

    If the fucking government is actively doing things that are an attempt to prevent or disrupt your attempts at free association, even if those things are merely using existing prejudices and misleadingly printed flyers (remember that the point of the flyers is to seem like an invite from the YSA itself, even if it doesn't officially say that), they are still attempting to disrupt your free association. Full stop.

    Why is the government trying to disrupt the free association (through any means, no matter how "benign") of non-criminal citizens? Because that's exactly what it was doing.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's not a disruption of freedom of association (benign or otherwise) if 1) force isn't being used or 2) a service isn't being deprived by government. Social and individual opprobrium -- no matter how disgusting or stupid -- cannot be construed as such.

    That is a good point about the flier being made out to seem like it was from YSA, though. I assumed that the sign's attempted "viewpoint" was that of a heckler -- "Jerry sucks cocks" written on bathroom stalls, that kind of thing. Surely not even the FBI is so out of touch as to use phrases like "love-brother" and "Gay set" unironically?

  • Zeb||

    Dude. First amendment protects free association from government action. FBI is part of the government. All actions by the government rest on an implicit threat of force. FBI is trying to influence who associates with the young commies or whoever they were. The fact that it is the government is doing it makes all the difference. How is this hard to grasp?

  • ||

    That's...fucking retarded. It's objectionable because the god damn FBI has no fucking business running psyops on non-violent domestic groups. The content of their flyer is irrelevant compared to the fact that they're making fake flyers in order to fuck with people who have committed no crime and haven't announced any intentions to do so.

    If you can't see that, dude, I don't know what's going on with you. Because that is the issue here.

  • paranoid android||

    No, it's objectionable because the government is taking deliberate, affirmative steps to discourage people from joining a peaceful political group. That's the objection here. You seem to be arguing against some point that nobody was making.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    the government is taking deliberate, affirmative steps

    What the steps are is relevant to whether or not they are objectionable.

    If a police chief said, "The purpose of laws against murder is to make sure that we are sending a message to society that murder is wrong", then clearly the motivation for the law is wrong: governments attempting to inculcate moral behaviors is brainwashing, pure and simple. It does not follow that the law against murder is objectionable.

    Put another way, the reason that it is wrong for government to engage in this particular action does not have to do with the stated rationale for an action -- it has to do with the lack of an appropriate rationale for why it would correspond to government's duties in the first place.

    I reject the notion that having an unpopular view is itself a harm (and thus that publicizing that view when it is publicly stated is wrong) -- firstly, because there is nothing wrong with holding an unpopular view in the first place, secondly, because others who are dumb enough to believe otherwise still have freedom of association rights which should be respected, and thirdly, because it detracts from the actual reason that this line of action is inappropriate for governments to engage in.

  • JW||

    I reject the notion that having an unpopular view is itself a harm (and thus that publicizing that view when it is publicly stated is wrong)

    OK, then start posting using your real name. Why the disguise?

  • JW||

    OK, cool. I'll just note that you're fine and dandy with the state conducting false whisper campaigns against you.

  • ||

    Oh, I see what's going on. Just give in. It's OK. Go down to that bathhouse and suck those delicious cocks, kiddo. It's OK. You'll feel better for it.

  • ||

    Dude, you are twisting yourself into a pretzel. This is absurd. Just stop while you're behind.

  • GILMORE||

    ""The only way such a thing can be objectionable is if...""

    You sort of just beg the question there don't you?

    (I never use that phrase correctly, but I think this time its actually right)

    I mean, your case above that "just because it - under your own definitions - technically doesn't 'violate the NAP', then Ergo = Kosher" is only a valid case for you, who seems to think that the NAP is the summum totum of all judgement re: human behavior? when did that become the law of the land?

    How is creating misleading materials under false pretenses (i.e. naming OTHER PEOPLE who have nothing to do with the creation of said material, yet implying it is theirs, and keeping the identity of the actual creator hidden) in any way "unobjectionable", and not clearly malicious defamation?

    You might suggest that one is simply 'reprinting' summations of these groups existing positions = but that would be disingenuous. Is it 'non aggressive' to be pretending to represent someone else, with the active intent of smearing the group and offending their potential recruits? On your own terms it fails.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    just because it - under your own definitions - technically doesn't 'violate the NAP', then Ergo = Kosher

    You misunderstand. Actions which the government can legitimately take = an explicit set. 'Distributing political fliers' not an element of set, therefore =/= Kosher. However, that set and the set of NAP-compliant actions (which applies to government and others) are different sets -- not complying to NAP is immoral for all actors in a way which is not true of items which do not fall into the other set, and both sets should be viewed differently.

  • GILMORE||

    im gonna need mustard with that pretzel

  • SugarFree||

    and the only way the disbursement of information would be harmful to the group is if there exists in society antagonism towards the views expressed

    There was societal antagonism toward homosexuality in 1971. The intent of the fliers was to associate the YSF with a hated group to discourage membership.

    The FBI shouldn't have been doing this at all. How they went about it is beside the point.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That societal antagonism was itself stupid, but not the result of these fliers -- it existed prior to their creation. However, it should be noted that it is juvenile fliers like these which made many people rethink their poor logic and silly biases in the first place -- such a flier is clearly in poor taste, and expresses no logic except crass guilt-by-association.

    Speaking for myself, I rethought my own biases on this issue back in the 80s thanks to idiotic propaganda along these lines. Would that all propaganda were so open and accurate -- IMO, society does not change such views except when all arguments have been aired openly and without fear, and been tested extensively. The government should not be involved in this process, but that is ultimately the problem -- not the airing of accurate information and stupid arguments, especially when these arguments contain within them the seeds to a more rational public view on the subject.

  • Zeb||

    The only way such a thing can be objectionable is if we assume that a non-violent political group has a pre-existing right or expectation that its views be treated charitably by the public -- which is of course nonsense.

    The FBI is not the public. If you put that sign up, it would be fine (except for the implied homophobia, but private people are allowed to be dicks). It is an objectionable act when done by a government agency because the government should not be trying to influence political activity in any way.

  • Fluffy||

    It's objectionable because it's a theft of tax dollars.

    The FBI possesses no constitutional authority to attempt to influence the outcome of US elections.

    Any legal domestic political activity by any group of US citizens is, directly or indirectly, an element of US elections.

    Therefore this monitoring activity was unconstitutional and the funds spent on it (the photocopying charges and the wages of the agents involved) was stolen.

  • Fluffy||

    Were stolen, sorry.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Maybe you should look more into each operation before presuming so much.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    You presume a lot there.

  • ||

    Really? The FBI was knowingly and purposefully ruining the lives of people whose worst crime was merely being annoying hippies, and you don't have a problem with it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    How was it ruining their lives? It isn't even clear that these immature fliers had their intended effect of discouraging membership, much less that anyone had their lives ruined as a result of this specific action.

    If you are speaking more broadly about COINTELPO, I agree but my point regards this specific action.

  • ||

    Insert a "trying" in there, then. Stop letting your latent homofears cloud your judgment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hold on there, hoss. If the FBI had rounded up the hippies and exiled them to Pitcairn Island, America would be a much better place.

  • Zeb||

    Nah, some other group of assholes would have just taken their place.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Worse than hippies? Hitler was a hippie, you know.

  • Killaz||

    The NAP is violated when they cash in their paychecks.

  • RBS||

    Is the Fukushima Cover Up Falling Apart?
    According to YouTube user, DutchSinse

  • playa manhattan||

    There's something like this in my Facebook feed every week. I go straight to Phase 3: Ridicule.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I must be lucky or have the right kind of friends on facebook but I never have people posting crap like this. On the rare occasion someone will post some pro socialist policy babble but mostly nothing.

  • playa manhattan||

    I find that it is usually dumb people who want to feel smart. Sort of an "I know something you don't know!" type thing that leads people to post obscure links to very unreliable sources.

    I know a lot of these types of people from high school. I would say 90 percent of the people who see these kinds of links immediately know that they are bullshit, but are too polite to say so. When I call bullshit, I'll usually get several private messages thanking me.

  • db||

    Usually when I get an obviously bullshit or technically absurd piece of e-mail (or in the past when I still used it, Facebook link), I personally and privately contact the sender to explain why it is wrong. There's nothing to be gained in publicly shaming people. Usually they will send out a "mea culpa" to the distribution afterward.

  • Andrew S.||

    Well, I'm convinced. If it was fake, it wouldn't be on the internet, right?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I mean how can you argue with a video of a guy with a geiger counter measuring things? The evidence is indisputable at this point. Fukushima is a MASSIVE WORLD WIDE COVERUP for the world nuclear industry, who is so powerful that in the USA, 4 plants have been licensed to be built in the last 30 years!

    I bet their is even a Kochtopus tentacle somewhere in there! This goes all the way to the top Fellas!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I blame Monsanto.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh Lew! Here's a wiff of the latest fetid shit-bubble that arose from that fever-swamp:

    Rep. Peter King (R-Tel Aviv) Calls Rand Paul a Liar . . .
    Thomas DiLorenzo

    . . . “who does not deserve to be in the U.S. Senate” and who “hates America” because Rand Paul defends the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Is there a bigger idiot in Washington than Peter King?

    King is an idiot who has capitalized on fear of Muslims to further his political career; however, he has never publicly set foot in the Palestinian issue. And while he has peddled conspiracy theory about Hezbollah sleeper agents in the US (or is it just 'conspiracy theory'? Hmmm...) he has never called for war with Iran, like say, McCain has.

    However, in DiLorenzo's world if you dare criticize Rand Paul, then obviously you are merely a puppet of the perfidious Jew/Illuminati/Lizard People axis.(I mean, have you seen that freak Lincoln? Lizard Alien-Human hybrid, for sure!)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The inner mental life of these two must be utterly bizarre; King sees a swarthy Muslim hiding behind every bush waiting to pounce, whereas DiLorenzo see a swarthy Jew.

    One wonders...when Rand Paul spoke in Jerusalem, stating that "America is and will always be a friend of Israel" and when speaking of foreign aid cuts stated "I would start a little more quickly with those who are enemies of Israel, and enemies of the US. I would like to see their aid end more quickly. With regards to Israel, it could be a gradual phenomenon.", did DiLorenzo see it fit to append a cutesy little origin label like (R - Haifa) to Paul's name? Or like the FBI, he only slurs by association those he perceives as his political enemies?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let the socialists print up their own damn fliers.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No. no, no, Fist, that's not how socialism works. They get the votes, then they use force to make rich people pay for the fliers.

  • GILMORE||

    Nothing says "FBI plant" like the term "Gay Set".

    Because that's how queers refer to themselves.

    they could just as well said, "HEY HEPCATS AND ZOOT-SUITERS: FREE REEFER HANDOUT AT THE LOCAL JAZZ-O-TORIUM (Next to FBI Office #2381)"

  • SugarFree||

    Namaste, my love-brother.

  • SusanM||

    It's eerily reminiscent of that bit in "Dragnet" where they get dressed up with what they think will blend in.

  • Fluffy||

    Nonono - the flier wasn't aimed at gays.

    It was aimed at straights. The flier was intended to discourage straights from joining this organization by making it sound like something for gays.

    With that purpose, the more Archie Bunkerish the language the better. You WANT the squares to be able to understand it.

  • Rhywun||

    Nothing says "FBI plant" like the term "Gay Set".

    Or "love-brothers". WTF?

    Maybe people talked real different in 1971.

  • db||

    I was wondering about that. Did gay men ever actually refer to each other like that?

  • SugarFree||

    I've looked through a a few gay slang reference and a polari dictionary and can't find that it was ever in use.

    The whole point of polari was to obfuscate the subject matter. "Love-brother" is more than a bit on the nose.

  • Enough About Palin||

    +2 dropped bobbypins

  • SKR||

    I suddenly have an urge to listen to "Bona Drag".

  • GILMORE||

    Love-Brothers, Unite!

  • Enough About Palin||

  • GILMORE||

    I was thinking something more along these lines,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TbCKC7Kc58

    however, with more of a house-music-pumping beat

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    Funny, if you ever said to someone in teh mainstream that the govt may be doing things like this, you call you paranoid. Then you show them these decades and decades of examples and they brush them aside as no big deal. I only assume this is still happening but after that FBI breakin they are better about hiding it. Why would they stop? No one was ever put in jail over any of this so what is the incentive to stop now?

  • ||

    We know it's still going on, with even more alphabet soup agencies in on the fun. Of course it's still going on, for just the reason you said.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    Derp progtard/neo con response....

    "Why would the govt do that!!?, you sound like a conspiracy wack job!!!"

  • ||

    My response: Edward Snowden.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He's a gay socialist?

  • ||

    No, that's your mom.

  • playa manhattan||

    It has been reported that he had a hot ballerina girlfriend. Did he live in one of the awesome parts of Hawaii? If so, he sure sacrificed a lot...

  • ||

    Do you consider Honolulu to be an awesome part of Hawaii? Because I do.

  • playa manhattan||

    Some parts. It's a big city.

  • prolefeed||

    Honolulu is actually a surprisingly boring town. Try finding a nightclub on a Friday night, you'll likely find a dozen or so people in most of them.

    It has been reported that he had a hot ballerina girlfriend. Did he live in one of the awesome parts of Hawaii? If so, he sure sacrificed a lot...

    I'm thinking with Snowden's fame/notoriety, he should be able to find some new hot Russian GF soon enough.

  • SugarFree||

    It will eventually come out that most comment sections of larger blogs had government-paid spoilers, trolls and agitators to violence.

    But that sounds paranoid, right? Like suggesting the FBI would spend time and resources putting up fake fliers in the 1970s or something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Like that Terry guy? Wonder what agency he worked for?

  • SugarFree||

    ATF. He was hilariously obvious. "Hey, guys! Anyone want to go murder a dozen cops? Huh? Anybody? Boy, I sure do hate our brave brothers in blue!"

  • playa manhattan||

    Whoops, I thought you were referring to garden variety Terry.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I actually thought that was funny. I also wondered why he was here rather than Lew Rockwell or somewhere a little more radical.

  • RBS||

    No comments at LRC.

  • Pro Libertate||

    There you go! I wonder if Cato Unbound has agent provocateurs?

  • RBS||

    There should be though, that way Mike M and EVH would have a place to hang out.

  • tarran||

    I kind of want to start one of those groups. We'd never do anything... I figure we'd charge dues for the meetings, and use the dues to buy pizza.

    Since most of these groups consist of broke true believers (who are in arrears for their dues) and infiltrators (who always pay promptly), we could have the FBI subsidize our pizza parties.

  • RBS||

    I may or may not be potentially interested in maybe joining, or not.

  • playa manhattan||

    Maybe he was trying to bait Epi into giving up personal info.

  • ||

    I only do that on Grindr. For research purposes only!

  • db||

    I bet some even write really perverted sex-fic to draw out potential illegal perverts.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah. That would be the worst... HEY!

  • ||

    Caught in his own trap!

  • SugarFree||

  • GILMORE||

    HE CANT WALK OUT
    BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU TOO MUCH, BABY

    WHY CANT YOU SEE
    WHAT YOURE DOING TO ME
    WHEN YOU DONT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY....

  • ||

    They would never do something that they've done in the past that's now fantastically easier from a manpower perspective because you don't have to have an actual agent infiltrate anything, just someone to post under assumed handles. Never.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It would help a whole lot if people would stop viewing government as being qualitatively different from other human institutions or, perhaps more to the point, individual humans.

    If a individual gave syphilis to people to conduct some medical experiment, that individual would go to prison and get wiped out in a civil suit. Government, not so much. If an individual crashed a remote control plane filled with explosives on a wedding, he goes to prison. Government, not so much. And there are thousands of other examples, many much more mundane, yet still demonstrating this bizarre disconnect.

    Ethics, morality, and yes, finance and economics apply to government as much as they do to individuals. If anything, government should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, and thrashed thoroughly when it fails to meet that standard.

  • playa manhattan||

    “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” -Barney Frank

  • GILMORE||

    Government is indeed an assfucking fat man.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If that were true, loads of government officials would be in jail, have paid out their lives' savings in damages, or both.

  • JW||

    "...whether you like it or not."

  • Pro Libertate||

    One of the most difficult ideas to get across for me, as a libertarian, is the idea that we can achieve all sorts of ends through cooperation. That's what we call it when people choose to do things together. So many people just assume coercion is needed for virtually anything government does.

  • JW||

    Hey buddy, that fair share isn't going to pay itself, you know.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Well, libertarians believe some coercion is necessary as they believe in taxation :)

    /pendant though as I agree with you - people have a hard time believing cooperation can do much of anything.

    They have two issues I think - one is most are fundamentally arrogant and assume everyone else is too stupid to make decisions that won't hurt them, so they need to control those situations, but second they assume cooperation means a lot of people agree with all the end goals.

    When that's not true at all - products can be made by people who hate elitist environmentalists, put on trucks owned by people who hate conservatives, dropped off at a local distribution center with owners who detest liberals, and in the end, the food if appropriate will still end up delivered and sold in a Whole Foods.

    & if it's a popular product, running out for just a couple of days will irritate shoppers greatly as they complain about the stupidity of management for daring to be without, for even a nano-second, such a popular product.

    All while never considering all the work necessary to make sure the product arrives in the first place, nor comparing current reality to a reality where the government produces products like these as they do under other systems.

    So due to the ubiquitous nature of the marketplace (and lack of critical thinking) many people simply fail to see the marketplace at all, much less properly value all that voluntary cooperation already provides.

  • ||

    Government is the way people abandon their ethics and morality through the cleansing power of collective action. If you're all executing a prisoner (even though the act is in fact carried out y an individual), it's no longer murder. If you're all stealing from others through taxation, it's no longer theft. And so on.

    It's really quite sick.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I heard something this morning about the new mayor of NYC wanting to sock it to the rich with more taxes. Apparently, he's sticking with this even though the state offered alternative funding for the program he's talking about (think it's fully paid pre-school). So, in other words, it's theft for the purpose of giving the money to other, more preferred, constituents. All okay, because it's government.

  • ||

    HEY GUYS WHY DOESN'T THE FBI DO SOMETHING TO STOP ALL THESE HOMOSEXUALS WHO KEEP SUCKING MY DICK???

  • playa manhattan||

  • ||

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, I guess the rough equivalent to this would be "What if the government was sending plants into Stormfront to invite them all over to Hit & Run?". Juvenile and idiotic, without a doubt. But, is it a violation of our rights? I'm not sure.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Exactly -- thank you.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Hey, wait, I think I figured out where American came from...

  • ||

    Sending Stormfront scum here isn't going to break up our marriages or get us beaten up or even get us prank called, like these posters could well have. The FBI was trying to cause real harm to these hippies, and apparently plenty of people here think it's OK because fags.

  • RBS||

    But they were just posting accurate, if juvenile, information!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Wait, I'm not saying "it's OK because fags". I'm trying to draw what I think is a reasonably close analogy to something I can relate to. Presumably, their goal in sending the Stormfront scum here would be to tar Hit & Run with the stench of Nazis. Again, juvenile and idiotic. But, I don't think people have a right to not be negatively associated.

  • JW||

    You don't think that you have a right to be free from state interference in your lawful political activities?

    I'm pretty sure there is some amendment about that, but I could be wrong.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How is the state interfering? Is it stopping you from being a member of YSA? It doesn't appear to be.

  • JW||

    Holy fuck. You're kidding, right? RIGHT?

    Go read the fucking Bill of Rights already.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Specify which amendment you're considering.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ.

  • RBS||

    This thread has given me a headache.

  • JW||

    They're making baby James Madison cry.

  • Zeb||

    Interference isn't limited just to preventing specific actions by specific people.

  • ||

    Isn't doing such a thing pretty much a form of libel, or depending how you look at it, fraud? If I put up a flyer that says "hi, come to Bill Dalasio's house at 6 tonight for my Furry meeting--punch and pie", with the thing designed to look like it was put up by you or one of your furry friends, there's no harm to you that can result? And let's say it wasn't me, but a fucking FBI agent that did it, with absolutely no reason to suspect you had done anything criminal, he just didn't like your politics?

    I'm really not seeing how you guys can excuse this. If you do, it opens so many doors for the government that it's crazy.

  • ||

    YIFF PARTY!!!

  • ||

    I forgot to ask if Bill was, in fact, a furry. Wouldn't want to negatively associate him using lies and deception under the color of law in an attempt to influence his ability to recruit people to his non-violent cause.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Let's unpack this statement, shall we:

    If you're a person unaware of Bill's yiffery, and Bill has advertised his yiffing during the course of his political meetings as a matter of the public record, then only one thing changes

    You now know that Bill is a furry.

    One of two things is true:

    You will attend his political meetings regardless of this fact. Nothing has changed, nothing can be stated about association one way or another.

    You will not attend his meeting *because* of this fact. In this case, the only change is a *positive* one because you now have information which you perceive as having been helpful in making your decision without compulsion. Since you are the one making the decision, only you can determine whether it was in fact relevant -- and from your decision, it can be determined that the information was useful to you.

    The only alternative would be your continued participation and association with a group on false premises -- which seems far less positive than either working out the errors of a silly prejudice or letting people with this mentality associate based on accurate information.

  • GILMORE||

    "You now know that Bill is a furry"

    I fail to see the connection where you now are permitted to speak on said furry's behalf without him doing so himself. Oh, while doing so anonymously, while being funded by his, your, my taxes to do so.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    A valid point. Now, what I'm going to ask is doesn't the fraud or libel matter rest on the claim's untruthfulness? That is to say, if I actually was having a Furry meeting at my house at 6 with punch and pie, wouldn't the fraud or libel issue go away? Or are you suggesting that making it look like I posted the flier is what constitutes fraud or libel?

  • ||

    TULPICAL

  • JW||

    BONIFICENT

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Right, exactly.

    If a Christian socialist group in a Buddhist majority country stated in their meetings that "Jesus Christ is the center of our existence" and were mocked for holding that view, their rights were not violated -- that is the natural consequence of a minority view running headlong into the oppositional majority view and (so long as this does not motivate violence) is a perfectly appropriate way for society to interact with ideas. If the Christian socialists want to increase the cachet of their ideas, then they need to start arguing for them in ways that appeal to the culture -- incidentally, this introduces arguments which the majority population may not have heard and makes it more likely that their views will be based on the best available arguments and information.

    The same applies to gay issues and rights. I can't tell for sure what caused the change in attitudes regarding gays, but I suspect that excluding them from this process would not benefited them. I certainly include myself as one person whose views changed as a result of the fallacious arguments used by anti-gay folks in the 80s.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Government should not be involved in this process due to 1) it not being in the scope of their charter, and 2) given how easily such can lead to changes in treatment in NAP areas, but the action of spreading information of public record and advancing arguments based on such is not a harm, regardless of how other people *choose* to respond to such information and argument. (Obvious exception: if there is an obvious expectation of imminent and specific violence as a result of such.)

  • Fluffy||

    but the action of spreading information of public record and advancing arguments based on such is not a harm

    Where'd they get the money they're using to do that, and how?

  • JW||

    And....I'm out.

    I didn't say anything when they came for the pedants, because they're fucking annoying.

  • ||

    HOLY FUCKING SHIT, DUDE. We're not talking about gay issues at all. But it seems you think we are. Because all we're talking about is the government performing psyops on its own citizens for no crimes committed whatsoever. You know, like the kind of thing East Germany used to do.

    Fuck, this is tiring.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Shouldn't the starting place for any federal action be the enumerated and limited powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution? Where does it get the power to fuck with citizens?

    Yes, I know that's all been distorted out of any semblance of limited government, but the threshold question should be "Can the government do this?" not "Why can't the government do this?"

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Of course it should. I said as much above.

  • JW||

    Wait, are you saying that the gubmint conducting a secret misinformation campaign against the Libertarian Party, saying that they're full of Nazis and pedophiles, wouldn't be harmful to the party?

    Because, unlike what you wrote, that's exactly what it would be like.

    And there's the thorny issue of WHY IS THE STATE DOING IT AT ALL? And why are there supposed libertarians acting as apologists?

  • Almanian!||

    This comes from the "Law and Order Libertarians®", like tulip.

    Right?

  • tulip||

    You mean Tulpa. Please don't assume my thoughts are anywhere near his.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Harmful to the party isn't the question, though, is it? The question is whether it would be a violation of anyone's rights? If so, what right is being violated?

  • JW||

    What is a political party, except a collection of individuals acting in concert?

    Sorry, but if you don't get it by now, after this entire thread, I don't know what else I could say that would make any difference.

    Tail chasing is only fun for so long.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Which right is being violated, JW?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The right to not be forced to pay those who would use that money to slander me.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except how is it slander in this case? Hadn't the YSA voted to accept gay members?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because the ad implies that the YSA members listed in as contacts are gay.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Valid point. Then, on that, I stand corrected.

  • Fluffy||

    It's a violation of my rights because it's stealing tax dollars for an unconstitutional purpose, and stealing tax dollars to attempt to influence the outcome of domestic political competition.

    If I was a Young Socialist, I'm entitled to have domestic political developments occur organically, without government or police intervention and without tax dollars being used to tip the scales.

    Spending my tax dollars to attempt to embarrass or undermine me politically violates my rights.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So is some E-4 jacking off in an office chair in a do-nothing Pentagon make-work position. I'm not going to say that the act of his jacking off, watching TV, or any other action taken in that position is a specific violation of my rights when in fact the violation is that I am being forced to pay for this job in the first place. If the E-4 is not employed in a job doing a legitimate government service, forcing me to pay for that job is violating my rights. The details of what he is doing besides that are immaterial to that issue, unless those actions are themselves NAP-violating (say, the E-4 is using his position to rape civilian women or something along those lines).

  • Fluffy||

    If the E-4 is not employed in a job doing a legitimate government service, forcing me to pay for that job is violating my rights.

    No, because the mere waste of tax dollars, while a violation of my rights, is less egregious than unconstitutionally spending tax dollars in a way that violates my enumerated rights.

    An FBI agent spending all his time watching porn on his computer is stealing tax dollars. An FBI agent spending all his time trying to advance the interests of the Catholic church is stealing tax dollars to violate the Establishment Clause. An FBI agent spending his time trying to undermine my political party is stealing tax dollars and violating my right to free association and my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. An FBI agent spending all his time trying to contact potential jurors in my upcoming trial would be stealing tax dollars and violating my free to a fair trial. Etc.

  • Fluffy||

    If the FBI was using tax dollars to secretly buy advertising time to advise people to vote against me in an election, would you concede that activity violated my rights?

    This is no different.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If the FBI was using tax dollars to secretly buy advertising time to advise people to vote against me in an election, would you concede that activity violated my rights?

    Only this part of your statement is a violation of your rights. Distributing accurate information or arguments based on accurate information about you does not.

  • Fluffy||

    No, because attempting to influence the election violates my right under the constitution to a republican form of government, as well as my right to stand for election if I'm a citizen of the right age (if we're talking about a federal office).

  • GILMORE||

    ""Distributing accurate information or arguments based on accurate information about you does not.""

    Done so under your own same, sourcing who is funding your particular crusade - sure.

    But that wasn't what we were talking about was it.

  • Fluffy||

    What right would be violated if the FBI used my tax dollars to secretly support the Catholic Church?

    Same right here. Different clause.

  • Almanian!||

    The FBI is so fucking gay...

  • 904cc||

    What a fun discussion thread, you have a guy who doesn't get it insisting he does, while getting shouted at by a mucsclebound retard trying to say something so he can mattered.

    I don't know hwo the bigger fuckwit was, immaculate or warty, it was like dueling extra chromososmes.

  • 904cc||

    I think it's warty, he's so stupid he actually thinks hormones don't change behavior, and insists on destrying his credibility frequently by saying so.

  • GILMORE||

    "...a mucsclebound retard trying to say something so he can mattered.

    I don't know hwo the bigger fuckwit was..."

    NEEDS MOAR DROOLING AN HAR HAR

  • Tony||

    You guys should think more pragmatically. How many impressionable young minds did this action prevent turning into socialists?

  • GILMORE||

    You're the socialist love-brother here. You tell us.

  • prolefeed||

    I don't think it's in the government's charter to verbally endorse a brand of beer, but if government officials were to end all of their speeches by saying, "Miller Lite: why not enjoy a DMV-quality beer?

    I don't think "endorse" means what you think it does -- "malign" seems to capture that endorsement a lot better.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement