Introduction and Explanation

First of all, this link shows how to remain reasonably anonymous online. It is worth a read.

This blog is all about the comments.
Comments that give information and ideas, that is. Comments that abuse, denigrate and vilify won't be published, unless it is necessary to show the world how unreasonable or abusive someone is being.

Medawar intends to use this blog as a reporting tool, so he can research how and why extremist (and criminal) groups cross-pollinate with other extremist groups, mainstream pressure groups, major political parties and even government itself.

Pretty well every entry urges readers to post comments anonymously unless they are confident that their web identity isn't traceable back to their real identity. A couple just tell readers to post comments anonymously. This isn't melodrama, it really is possible to find oneself being stalked, merely for expressing an opinion.

Although this exercise arose out of a particular discussion in comments to Medawar's Cornflakes about a specific movement being infiltrated by neo-nazis, it occurs to Medawar that there was no reason why infiltration is practised only by neo-nazis, and neither is there any reason why they should seek to join one pressure group and not others, even those directly opposed to the first. If what they are doing is advancing their own cause and agenda rather than those of the groups they join.

This has widened (and hardened) into a wary interest in infiltration and political manipulation generally. Please read through the posts, each post describes a category of political extremist and/or criminal, and see if you have anything to add. Medawar gives examples of some groups perhaps attempting some specific things, and others doing something else. But it's always possible that someone will have experience of one group using a tactic that Medawar ascribes to another, and that would be interesting, so your comments (on appropriate categories), please.

Racist Post-Apocalyptic Utopians

The same as non-racist post apocalyptic utopians, except that either the utopia will be built from survivors confined to one ethnic group (at least in a given geographical region), or where the holocaust will be confined to one or perhaps several, ethnic group(s).

Troy Southgate would appear to be an example of the former, and Heinrich Himmler ended up in the same sort of place. (He definitely didn't start from that kind of position.)

An example of the latter would be William Pierce, the late author of the "Turner Diaries". It is possible to regard Pierce (and some of his Russian counterparts) as more extreme than Southgate, Himmler or even Hitler. Southgate seeks only a sparsely-populated rustic British Isles free of ethnic minorities, Himmler wanted a sort of rustic utopia with an exclusively Germanic population and the Fourth Reich was really only to create a secure environment for this Arcadia. (Assuming that there was anything in their ideology at all and it wasn't merely cooked up to please potential supporters.) Pierce appeared to want a world in which no negros or jews existed, anywhere at all. Never quite official Nazi policy.

Otherwise, Medawar invites comments from readers who can cite instances of RPAUs in government, political think tanks and pressure groups, whether mainstream or extreme.
Anonymous comments only for this topic, and be wary of using work computers unles you're really sure that nobody has put a data-miner on them.

Non-Racist Post-Apocalyptic Utopians

A real mouthful of a category! Examples would include William Morris as well as Richard Hart.
Those who envisage some natural or artificial catastrophe wiping away the major part of the human race, allowing a "fresh start" and some kind of utopia.

In some cases, such as "Earth First!" and the "Earth Liberation Front" the utopia appears to be "ecological" and in others the human race needs to be wiped out and rebuilt, primarily to heal or rectify its social structures or mores. Medawar suspects that this distinction may prove cosmetic and that even the animal rights and "deep ecological" extremists who want a massive reduction in human population* really want human society, to conform to a particular template and for everyone left alive to dance to the activist's tune.

* The massive reduction varies, from those who say that the Earth can only support two billion people (ie: they want a 70% cull) to those who want something over 90% to go, culiminating in those who want so few human survivors (one to three million, worldwide) that it's hard to express the intended/hoped-for cull as a meaningful percentage!

Medawar invites comments from readers who can throw light on NRPAUs joining mainstream pressure groups of absolutely any kind, and especially, on the presence of those holdings these views in political think tanks. (Think tank members can influence politics at a very high level without revealing their objectives, let alone winning a democratic mandate.)

If anyone knows of a NRPAU in policy-level civil service post, or serving on a formal advisory committee (more directly part of the policy process than a think-tank) then it really is important that this become known.

Medawar thinks that all comments giving information on this topic should be anonymous. Even then, do not make them on work computers unless you're really sure no-one monitors what's done on the work computers. (The MoD may be the only branch of government where this is ever true.)

Animal Rights Extremists

Medawar invites comments from any reader who can cite a specific instance of an animal rights extremist being an active member of a non-extremist animal welfare group, such as the RSPCA, or a less-extremist animal rights group, such as the BUAV. Medawar would also like to know if anyone has noticed less likely-sounding infiltrations, such as into organic gardening groups?

Were they attempting to change the agenda of the more mainstream organization?
Or were they simply trying to amass information, perhaps on the members and donors?

Does anyone feel that they have been forced out of a local group of a national mainstream "animal" organization by an influx of people to that group, with extreme or militant views?

As always, post anonymously unless you are confident that your web identity does not track back to your real identity, and be wary of using a work computer if you share a workplace with an apparent extremist. Firewalls only stop data-miners being installed over the net: they don't stop someone with a supervisor password installing one on your work machine directly.

Neo Nazis

Medawar would be interested to see comments from anyone who can cite incidences of persons with neo-nazi connections, joining other radical or campaigning groups. Especially if several neo-nazis, perhaps from a variety of named groups (and there are several), all happen to join the same local campaigning group. More especially still, if this happens when the local group's normal core membership is in jail for "civil disobedience" or actual criminal offences. (If you know of somebody other than the neo-nazis doing this, please feel free to post a comment, but look through the blog for the right, or nearest, category post, first.)

It is possible that some local chapters of national campaign groups might become effective colonies of the far right in one or more regions, even if nationally neo-nazism is the last thing the movement wants to represent.

There has been debate about neo nazis joining the animal rights movement, but Medawar knows that the Nazis themselves latched onto whatever the local cause was in different parts of Germany, and happliy supported diametrically opposed causes in different German states (Lander), for the sake of having uniform support and influence across the country.

Comment, too, if your knowledge is not as specific as all that, but if you have noticed the political colour of a national campaign vary markedly from one locality to another. That could be a useful clue.

Post as "anonymous" unless you are certain that your web identity does not readily trace back to your real identity.

Opus Dei

Medawar would welcome comments from anyone who can cite an instance of an Opus Dei member joining a political pressure group, of any kind. Is it possible to identify and describe their influence on that pressure group?

Did the feel of the group change?
Did its direction change?
Did its methods become more lawful, more ethical, or was there actually a trend towards unlawful or improper methods?

For readers who work in public service, or other large and powerful organizations (you are not going to find many Opus Dei members where there are no levers of power) Medawar would welcome any comments concerning Opus Dei members, but especially those concerning the impact of the Opus Dei member on the appoinment and subsequent careers of others within the organization.

Does the Opus Dei member systematically favour persons from a particular profile?
Do they set out to disadvantage certain others, perhaps Baptists, Quakers or Elim Pentacotalists?

Do they gather more information on colleagues than they properly should?

Readers interested in Opus Dei should read the post on "Common Purpose", because members of one might be mistaken for graduates of the other.

As always, post comment anonymously if you're not certain that your web identity is secure and does not allow you to be easily identified. If an Opus Dei or Common Purpose person shares your workplace at any level, don't use your private web identity with any workplace computer.

Islamic Extermists

Medawar invites comments from anyone who can cite instances of a confirmed Islamic militant joining another form of political pressure group, or even a quite different form of extremist group.

Likewise, has anyone known to have a background in another form of extremism, tried (or succeeded) in joining an Islamic militant group of any description.

What did readers think was going on?
Or was it too baffling to tell?
Did the link change the behaviour of either group, and in what direction?

Does the inclusion of a person who's been radical in another cause, simply inject skill and experience, or do they make the objectives and ideals change, or do they attempt this?

Common Purpose

Common Purpose is a company limited by guarantee in the United Kingdom, which claimed to be a charity some time in advance of having a valid charity number. It does now appear to have a charitable registration, mainly in response to accusations from its opponents, that it was a bogus charity.

However, it is a training organization, being paid almost entirely by public sector organizations to train their personnel. It is also a highly political organization, arguably unsuitable either to train public servants, who ought to be professionally impartial, or to receive public monies, or to hold charitable status.
The political orientation of "Common Purpose" is communitarianism. American readers will doubtless read this as communism, but in fact communitarians could be mistaken for Mussolini just as easily as they might be mistaken for Lenin.

One of the important skills which taxpayer's money allows Common Purpose to impart to its "graduates" (it doesn't allow anyone to be called a member, because that would force it to comply with any laws pertaining to a membership organization!) is known as "Leading Beyond Authority". Lawyers amongst the readership would probably recognize this as "acting ultra vires".

Basically, any CP graduate holding a public post (and nearly all of the 80,000+ "graduates and trainees" do hold posts in government, local government, government quangos or agencies, charities or public interest corporations such as the BBC) is encouraged to use to use that position to implement changes that go beyond their remit, job description or any expectation of those who appointed them.

Since this is almost a dictionary definition of subversive behaviour, Medawar would welcome comments describing any CP graduate or trainee who has joined an obvious pressure group, such as an animal rights group or even an opposing group supporting scientific research or country sports.

Only identify them if they already have some measure of public prominence (likely, as they all seem to get important jobs in public service!) but Medawar's main interest is in what they are doing by joining pressure groups or political organizations.

Did the group start to feel different after the CP person joined?
Did its objectives or methods change?
As a non CP member of that group, did this feel good or bad?
Does the CP person try and determine the outcome of meetings, or attempt to sum up what other people have said, in a way that twists what they meant or puts words in their mouth?
Has anyone left a pressure group or political organization because they didn't like what happened after CP appeared?

Do readers working in public services recognize colleagues as possible CP graduates, based on the above? Are they good to work with, or could staff do a better job if the CP people went away, never to return? Do CP people cause resources to be wasted or misdirected to improper purposes?

Since Common Purpose reportedly acts as a contact and favours network as well as a political training cadre, would comment posters please ensure that their web identity does not lead back directly to them, and that they do not use their web ID from any work computer if they work in public service in any form. Post anonymously if you cannot meet these precautions.

Deutschland-Clan

The Deutschland-Clan can be defined as a coalition of new and existing organized crime and loosely political groups, rejuvenated and brought together by an influx of "ex" Stasi agents after the fall of communism (1989 onwards.) Operating mainly in Germany, of course, but also Canada to a surprising extent and the United States. (Think railroad companies.) Presumably, the Clan must have links with Argentina and Uruguay, but Medawar has no definitive information on this.

Medawar would welcome comments on the groups and processes involved in the creation of the Deutschland-Clan, but he is more concerned with what protest groups, political movements or even commercial companies, members of the Deutschland-Clan have subsequently joined or tried to join, and whether and in what direction, clan members have attempted to influence those groups. If readers know of a company infiltrated by the Deutschland-Clan, what did the agenda appear to be?

For example; did they want to take the company over, or run it into the ground so it didn't compete with something else?
Or did they attempt to completely redefine what the company did, its commercial or geographical area of business, or radically alter its internal culture?
Did the company become a tool of political influence (or was it one already), or did money appear to be the clan's sole interest?

Much the same applies to pressure groups or political movements: What did they do, what did they want, was there a wholesale change in the way everything was done? If readers were members of an organization, of absolutely any sort, including police departments, which acquired Deutschland-Clan infiltrators or influence, did it feel bad, or was there anything good about it? (Perhaps greater efficiency and sense of purpose, even if it's not wholly clear to non-insiders what the new purpose is!)

Anyone using a web identity to post comments, is urged to make certain that this does not lead directly back to their real identity, before posting comments on this subject.