Main Menu



Available Books

New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control

Dedication & Thanks

Volume I: Current Political Situation

Volume II: The New War

Volume III: Weapons of The New War

Volume IV: The Coverup


Use of Citizen Informants

Informants are private citizens who unofficially work for a government. They may be full or part-time, paid or volunteer. They are all forbidden to reveal their connection to the government. Government informants are used to instill fear and disrupt activities.

They are also used to infiltrate movements and organizations in order to control them. Those with special skills, or who can place themselves in top positions of organizations to be infiltrated are especially valued. Some organizations are fraught with informants who may even be reporting on each other.

Informants have been used against the Jews and Christians in ancient Rome, non-Catholics during the Inquisition, Catholics in the 1600s in England, and colonists in the 1700s in America by the British Crown.

They have been used against slaves seeking refuge in the 1800s in America, British trade union movements in the 1800s, in Ireland against those struggling for independence, Czarist regimes in Russia, then later in Communist Russia.

Networks of citizen informants are used on the local level to maintain dictatorships. Communist Russia used a massive network of citizen informants to stalk and harass its internal enemies. Run by the Committee for State Security (KGB), this network reached into literally every single area of society. Its purpose was to instill fear and prevent people from speaking freely.

The East German dictatorship, which was based on the Soviet system, also had a colossal network of informants, which encircled the everyday movements of it its domestic enemies. They were referred to as unofficial collaborators (IMs) and were under the control of the Ministry for State Security (MfS).

If full and part-time informants are considered, 1 out of 6.5 citizens unofficially worked for the MfS in East Germany. Even children were recruited. Targeted people were group stalked by a rotation of citizens that were part of this vast network. They were followed everywhere. From the moment they left their homes, until they returned, they were stalked.

The MfS also ran its own version of COINTELPRO known as zersetzung. The targeted person was placed under surveillance and every single visitor was watched. Zersetzung used psychological warfare to destroy citizens without physically harming them. The targets had their lives and careers ruined.

Networks of citizens have been used in other countries as well. They include: the Czechoslovak State Security (StB) in Czechoslovakia, Ministry of Public Security (MBP) in Poland, and State Protection Authority (AVH) in Hungary.

The International and State Defense Police (PIDE) of Portugal also used a network of citizens (bufos). Targets of these dictatorships were harassed, threatened, confined to mental institutions, tortured, blackmailed, and framed. Their friends and family were co-opted to persecute them.

When the British Crown proposed the Sedition Act of 1789, Edward Livingston warned: “The country will swarm with informers, spies, delators and all the odious reptile tribe that breed in the sunshine of despotic power.” He continued, “the intimacies of friendship, or the recesses of domestic retirement, afford no security. The companion whom you must trust, the friend in whom you must confide, the domestic who waits in your chamber, are all tempted to betray your imprudent or unguarded follies...”

Informants in the US

The military began conducting civil affairs in the US as far back as 1917 when it used citizens to neutralize dissidents during WWI. During this time, the Military Intelligence Division (MID) had the cooperation of federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as “private vigilante networks” of patriotic citizens. This network actively surveilled civilians who were considered unpatriotic.

After the war and into the 1920s, military officers working for the Industrial College of the Armed Forces conducted educational seminars on domestic subversion in local communities all across the country. Around this time too, this domestic intelligence network formed relationships with local law enforcement agencies, businesses, retired military personnel, the National Guard, patriotic groups, and veterans organizations, all of which cooperated in the surveillance of civilians.

One of these groups was the American Protective League (APL), created in March of 1917 as an unofficial civilian force of the DOJ. It had 250,000 members, with organizations in every city and town in America that was of considerable size. The APL assisted the MID, DOJ, Navy, Treasury Department, and other government agencies in conducting investigations on civilians who where thought to be subversive.

Its unpaid members disrupted political protests, threatened union members with induction into the military, spied on violators of food and gasoline regulations, harassed people, burglarized their homes, and vandalized their property. The network attacked those who didn’t register for the draft, people who didn’t purchase liberty bonds, German immigrants, and others suspected of disloyalty.

Because it functioned silently and secretly, the general public knew little of its activities. Many similar patriotic groups sprung up across the country. One included the Anti-Yellow Dog League, a network of children who sought out disloyal people during dog hunts each day from one of its thousands of nationwide offices.

US Attorney General Thomas Gregory praised the network’s activities against America’s “resident enemies” in November of 1918, as reported in the New York Times. He proclaimed: “The knowledge upon their part that everywhere about them were the eyes and ears of a great organization auxiliary to the government raised a fear in their hearts as to the consequences of hostile action.”

After the war the Attorney General mentioned that the network should not be dismantled because dangers still existed requiring its ongoing cooperation. “By the end of the war,” says the August 1973 Senate report, Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, “Army intelligence had established a nationwide network of its own informants.”

Toward the end of the 1920s this network of citizens working with the military was completely entrenched as a counter-revolutionary force to uphold the established political order. Author Donner says it can be more accurately described as a political subculture that developed within our society, and is dedicated to monitoring peace movements and people who are thought to be subversive.

East Germany held the record for the largest informant network in history, until it was announced by various news outlets beginning in 2002 that the US would be surpassing it.1 The Boston Globe reported in May of 2003 that 100 million citizens was the recruitment goal. Similar reports appeared in other media.


Another major component of this new war is the swarm, also called the tactical swarm or what RAND refers to as the battleswarm. Swarming is an ancient military tactic that has been used in various campaigns.

It has been used in the air, on land, and in the sea. Swarming was used by (and against) Alexander the Great. It was used successfully during the second Greco-Persian War by the Greek Navy in 480 B.C. The Mongols under Genghis Khan used swarming tactics on horseback. Although they had no electronic means of communication at the time, they used a combination of flags, horns, and couriers to accomplish their swarms.

Since then, it’s been used by the Zulu tribes, the German U-boats during WWII, the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain, the US Army and North Vietnamese Army during the Vietnam War, and many other military engagements.

Swarming occurs throughout the animal kingdom, by bees, ants, flies, mosquitoes, and other insects, as well as wolves, hyenas, and sharks. Viruses and bacteria are also known to swarm. Swarming is used across the entire spectrum of warfare and will play an instrumental role in all future conflicts. It includes various dispersed nodes moving in unison at a fast pace from all directions to form an intense assault on a target.2

This rapid movement of nodes upon a target is called a pulse. A node can be an aircraft, vehicle, ship, organization, group, or individual. Until the pulse occurs, the dispersed network remains formless, with each node on standby. When the signal is given, each open node in the area rapidly convergences onto the target. After the attack, the nodes disperse and wait for the next set of instructions.

Each node can receive instructions from a commanding faction, or a peer unit which has detected a potential target. Electronic devices connect each node to an intelligence and surveillance system, which transmits nearly instantaneous instructions that allow them to move in unison toward the target without any planning or forethought.

The MITRE and RAND Corporations have studied swarming for the DOD. RAND proclaimed that the swarm will reshape warfare just as the rise of the blitzkrieg, and likened the swarmers to U-boats on patrol waiting for signals to attack.

Although swarming has been used for thousands of years, its full potential hasn’t been realized until recently with the advent of mobile electronic devices and surveillance technology. Because synchronization and communication are paramount for a successful swarm, RAND has mentioned multiple times that an advanced C4ISR system would be necessary. Only what they described as a new generation of information systems could allow it, which, they said, already exists.

The MITRE Corporation has worked on the creation of a battleswarm computer algorithm for the DOD which will optimize, schedule, and engineer the swarm. It uses biomimetics (also known as bionics) which is a fusion of biological systems and electronics.

They claim the technology will allow them to completely automate the swarm, which will basically be directed by a computer program. “Since each agent has only a local view of the overall activity in the swarm,” they explained, “some additional mechanism must be available to coordinate the collective behavior of the swarm.”

According to MITRE, algorithms which can be used for military purposes already exist that are capable of generating such automated swarms. The DOD has used them to control swarms of UAVs against mobile targets. However, even more advanced technology is being pursued to direct these swarms, including artificial intelligence.

What MITRE has essentially explained is a computer-generated swarm, where each node is fused to an advanced information system (just as RAND had mentioned would be necessary) exhibiting artificial intelligence, which directs them to the target. Also worth mentioning is that MITRE worked on the GIG for the DOD.



1 Despite the recent announcements by these official sources, this civil defense network is now entirely integrated into our society at every level. When I began researching this I thought that only a small number of people participated. My research and direct experience, however, has revealed to me that the opposite is true. The amount of people who are participating in battleswarms, and the absolute complicity of the various private sector establishments, indicates that it has been steadily growing since 1917. Although this network has received little attention, and is covered-up by various societal institutions, it is an advanced form of the ones that existed in Communist Russia and East Germany. It includes men, women, and children of all ages. I've noticed that children begin to participate as early as they can walk. Because this network is completely integrated into our society, it also includes people from every profession, including police, doctors, and even homeless people, as well as store clerks, wait staff, vendors, etc. Vehicles such as police, ambulance, and fire trucks are used to stalk people. City and commercial vehicles are also used, as well as off duty school buses, public transportation buses, delivery trucks, local restaurant vehicles, taxis, and regular vehicles driven by civilians.

2 The swarming attacks that this network conducts are brutal. They include crowding, blocking and cutoffs, the transmission of painful audio and visual triggers, and noise. The same dynamics exist when a gang of people surrounds someone and physically assaults them. The only difference is that these attacks leave no visible injuries. They are just as real and violent as any physical attack. When this happens every single place a person goes it is absolute torture. Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments at Yale University in the 1960s to determine how many ordinary people would commit acts of violence against others. The tests consisted of a teacher and a learner scenario. The teacher was told that he or she would be administering a test to a student (learner) and if the student answered a question wrong, they were to shock him. In reality, the learner was an actor, and the real subject of the experiment was the teacher. The true nature of the experiment was to see how much pain an ordinary person would inflict on an innocent victim with a heart condition, under the direction of an authority figure who was portrayed as a doctor. In order for the subject to refuse to shock the victim, they would have to have disobeyed the authority figure, who didn't threaten them with any type of punishment, only sternly told them to continue. Before the experiments Dr. Milgram asked a variety of experts in the behavioral sciences to guess the number of people that would administer the shocks to the highest level. They estimated that no more than one out of a thousand would be that sadistic. 65% of the subjects, however, administered the complete 450 volts to the victims, shocking them over and over again despite their requests to stop. To make sure that it was not strictly an American phenomenon the experiments were repeated in Germany, Italy, South Africa, and Australia with similar results. The level of obedience increased to as high as 90% when the distance between the teacher and student expanded, the authority figure was sterner, and the act was diffused among multiple people. According to Milgram, relatively few had the capacity to resist authority. Although most didn't like inflicting pain on people and protested, they still obeyed. Even when they were totally convinced of the wrongness of their actions, they could not bring themselves to disobey authority. This was one of the most significant psychological studies of the 20th century. It proved that most ordinary people, simply following orders and without any hostility, will participate in an atrocity. Milgram concluded that there was a formula that could be used by dictators to create conditions which would cause the public to participate in such processes, and that in any medium-sized town in America a sufficient number of people could be recruited to run a death camp. See the following publications: Harper's Magazine, The Perils of Obedience, December 1973, Stanley Milgram; Psychology Today Magazine, The Man Who Shocked the World, March/April 2002, Thomas Blaas; Yale Alumni Magazine, When Good People Do Evil, January/February 2007, Philip Zimbardo; The American Scientist, Milgram's Progress, July/August 2004, Robert V. Levine. Although we've all learned about this in our history books, it takes on a new meaning when you experience it personally. When it happens, some drastic shifts in your outlook occur. One is the realization that we don't live in a free society. And that in order for something this big and vile to exist it must be a policy of the people who are actually running our society. You then conclude that these people are seriously deranged. Another is that you've been lied to about the morality level that society has reached. Specifically, you discover that there is a flaw in our logic, as demonstrated by the Milgram experiments, that is concealed by mistakes contained in the common worldview, which implies that the lessons learned from those past atrocities have been assimilated into our collective consciousness, making us immune. This becomes more complicated when institutions that influence your perspective attempt to tell you that such things don't exist in this world. This creates a major conflict between the common knowledge that you are relying on to orient yourself, and what your experience tells you it is actually happening. You then conclude that this portion of the common worldview is entirely false, and that these institutions are complicit in a very big lie. Furthermore, you understand that all other destructive processes historically associated with such a phenomenon can occur once again at any time.