The Antiterrorist speak about the Misinformed Americans

[affa]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, given that you only have 2 posts... but here we go...

Exactly. This person is highly likely an operative.

actually, having watched about a dozen of his vids so far, I'd say he most likely is not. Actually, I'd say he definitely is not except for the fact I don't like to speak in absolutes.

One role of an operative is to control a target (i.e. truth or movement) and derail it. They are typically successful by making the target so distasteful to the mainstream that it will not be listened to by the mainstream, not matter what the substance. Many times, they frame targets as "conspiracies" or "conspiracy theories," which possess highly negative connotations in mainstream audiences and therefore are inherently distasteful.

The man in question has an entire video dedicated to this very issue. He goes into great detail. Most of his videos are backed up by clips of interviews and such backing up his points. Nothing in his vids give me the impression he is trying to 'derail' anything. Rather, they are full of information and I've looked up many a topic thanks to him. I'd never heard of Larry McDonald before him, for example. He clearly warns against the type of behavior you mention, stating instead that anyone speaking on topics such as he is discussing should avoid talking theory as much possible - instead speaking to fact and allow the listener to connect the dots as much as possible. I've yet to find him exaggerating or lying. His tongue in cheek Christmas episode was a sadly hilarious state of the union address.

Here, this person is attempting to derail substance by wearing a balaclava, disguising his voice, and calling himself an "anti-terrorist." All of these actions are powerful psychological statements that would most certainly turn away any individual who considers themselves mainstream. And these mainstream individuals, once turned away from the messenger, also turn away from the message, making it more difficult to address the pertinent substance within the message.

The major flaw in your reasoning here is that it's very unlikely anyone who is this 'mainstream' would even begin to listen to a man wearing that mask in the first place. His message is not to mainstream people, but to people who have already taken the red pill and wish to learn more. He pretty much says this up front. He also demands listeners research everything he says themselves.

If the argument is credible, then there is no reason to deliver it in this manner - wearing a balaclava and under the terrorism label. Free speech is an inalienable right, and discussions of these sorts can certainly take place in a reasonable and responsible

Says the man (or woman) speaking anonymously on the internet.

Throughout history, there has been gov't backlash against those who speak out against it. Guarding oneself against reprisal is not foolish. 'Free speech' is, debatedly, an inalienable right in the US (assuming you're in a Free Speech Zone) but he isn't speaking from the US.

So, while to some, this youtuber appears to be fighting a good fight, he is actually discrediting the message and creating rationale for stifling such discussion in the future. This is all by design, the technique has been used for centuries, and alert individuals should be aware of it and guard against it.

Actually, to some, I think he's fighting the good fight depspite what you say. This comes from watching many of his videos, not just reacting to his costume.

On Edit: Upon listening to this video again, it seems to me that this video is designed to produce chatter on the internet about "sedition." Here's a tip, he specifically said to communicate via the internet. Why not suggest by word of mouth, and ground mail? If he's so smart, why advise people to use a medium he knows is transparent?

Actually, he talks about the internet being on its last legs in that regard, and that people need to establish non-internet connectivity because of the very reasons you state.

This guy is setting a trap. First, he wants people to start discussing violent and perhaps illegal actions, then use the internet to do it, where those individuals can be tracked.

He is repeatedly and decisively non-violent.

We do not need illegal activities in order to regain our Constitution and the rule of law. And no responsible caring citizen would suggest such action. This is not the course to follow, and people like him should be dismissed as provocateurs.

He promotes civil disobedience ONLY, just like Dr. Ron Paul.