Wow, Robert, thank you. We need more articles like this because too many Santa Barbarans are very very ignorant about Antifa and defend it. I have a question. How did the Left take over what was originally anti-globalist and turn it into what it into the globalist/Marxist army it is today? My husband I were living in NYC during Occupy Wall Street and went to join the protest. As my husband says it was a carnival of protest against Wall Street misdeeds, from the left, right and center. There were the early Antifa types there, but they were so different than what we see now. Then during the Obama years we joined a Union Square protest against his NSA policies. The Left tried to take it over. We applauded that the organizers of it shooed those assholes out. And btw, we saw none of our liberal NYC media friends there. They didn't approve of protesting against Saint Barack. (I voted for him twice, but the Obama years drove me out of the Democratic Party.) Thank you.
Andrew Breitbart delved into Occupy Wall Street and looked for its connecting threads as well, in his documentary Occupy Unmasked though he reached other conclusions: https://archive.org/details/OccupyUnmasked_201708
May I then offer another take on OWS: From the outside looking in 3000 miles away, there was nothing even remotely coherent about OWS, except using as a brilliant cover up for the recently publicized and growing disparity between government union-bargained government employee compensation packages untouched by the 2008 crash, and those in the private sector that had been undone by the 2008 real estate/financial crash.
Then all the sudden seemingly out of no where, boom, fingers got pointed at "Wall Street" and the familiar oppressor/oppressed dichotomy was again decried through what could be called Democrat partisan political action running cover for the government employee unions and their sweetheart deals for their members.
Thus the story about the growing disparity between government employment and private sector employment compensation was swept from the front pages.
I always see "Wall Street" as a voluntary participation relationship. Like going to a Las Vegas casino.
Nor do I think it was 100% Wall Street "greed" that drove the 2008 meltdown - I point my own fingers back to partisan government intervention with Clinton's community housing act, leading to SEIU and ACORN pressuring banks to make loans they never would have nor should have have made in the first place.
Only then did they try to mitigate their expected losses and the whole thing collapsed. There was such a prescient SNL sketch about all of this and the "liar's loan" scandals that drove this eventual collapse.
Let’s not forget the causation of the 2008 meltdown as a predicate of the sub prime mortgage crisis. Putting people in homes they can’t afford in order to score cheap political points led to financial disaster, which we all are paying for.
No, home ownership is not a right! Sadly, that dream is gone for many young families, especially here locally.
Btw, your view of it is much the same as our media friends at the time. And I came to view those friends as not people I could trust on what they said or wrote.
None of the protestors at OWS that I talked to would have disagreed with you. And I talked to no one who was there in, say, the way that people are at a No Kings march through being worked up. They were very informed people. There are always two protests — one you're in and one you read about,
Exactly. we got only the most inflammatory OWS sound bites 3000 miles away. This too was a time of great instability after the 2008 crash, just like the recent "covid" mass hysteria and the 2024 Trump election TDS hysteria.
Or having just re-watched the 1959 movie On the Beach, the Cold War nuclear annihilation hysteria that gripped us at that time was far more real and defined our own coming of age adulthoods, in far more real terms than this "climate change" hysteria defines later generations. But the same challenge, was the "hysteria" an intentional manipulation in both cases?
That is really the larger picture that deserves a lot more attention. How to best cope with times of uncertainty, other than the ease of pointing fingers looking for ready scapegoats.
Plus recognizing how much do our own choices and needs for "blame" perpetuate these less than healthy responses in our own hearts as well.I struggle with that one a lot too.
Ask me how it feels to be the only No on 50 yard sign in my neighborhood, which quickly spread to Yes on 50 signs sprouting up on all sides as an immediate response. Even the neighbor who asked where to get a No on 50 sign, never did. (Martin Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other" gets me through my own darker days.)
This has been a time to go back to our basic civics lessons and reminding ourselves how our government was intended to operate; not the gross distortion of the system that we have inherited today. Prop 50 being the most grotesque, current manipulation of all.
Phew, I for one am ready for a "renewal of vows" this coming 250th anniversary of our ever-changing Republic.
Robert - thank you! You’ve done something James Bond wanna-be’s don’t do - infiltrate the enemy & give us an inside look at the Antifa Freaka’s.
Rosebraugh was presumably - ‘public relations/press office’ rather than being part of their sabotage cells. Just as, if not more dangerous than the jerks carrying out their ‘missions’.
You were so right about the Montana farm, “But the Bureau didn’t bite. They wanted indictments, not experiments. Had they let me run the farm, we could have owned the movement.” Turning down the opportunity of getting the enemy together in one place to figure out how to crush them - short-sighted thinking.
‘What Craig Rosebraugh — America’s “number-one domestic terrorist”— needed most, I thought, was a hug.” yeah - with a noose
I always love reading about your days of infiltration in enemy camps. I wish Radcliffe and Patel would listen to some of your stories and use your experience to do some of the same.
I think your view here is too narrow. I recall the 60s, Peoples Liberation Front, Weather Underground, Black Panthers.... There were groups promoting violence, and there was much violence, but there were also many people who deplored violence but realized that the basic ideas behind these groups were, for the most part, pretty good. End the Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, and so on. Basically, any period of large scale social change is going to produce a violent fringe on both sides (the KKK, beginnings of the Aryan Nations). It's a natural human phenomenon. The groups that promote violence will often be parasitic on the more tempered but much larger movements. A couple of good reads by Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing give some idea about this: Prisons We Choose to Live Inside (a series of radio lectured from 1985) and The Sentimental Agents (a satirical novel on the human tendency to rally to support causes). Interestingly, there was almost no violence in the No Kings protests despite their size, and there were no arrests of No Kings protesters. The few arrests that did occur were MAGA types trying to attack them.
“Peoples Liberation Front, Weather Underground, Black Panthers.... the basic ideas behind these groups were, for the most part, pretty good.” Are you kidding - they should have all been hung!
The mandatory draft and the existential threat of a generation dying or getting maimed in Vietnam gave a very different energy also to the 1960's. But it was an era that we did survive, even when it felt the entire nation was getting ripped apart. And I see now in retrospect, it was.
There was a very interesting book called "War Time" (Fussel - military historian) about the intentional white-washing even of the WWII experience, that made it too easy to stumble into another generation-eating conflagration like Vietnam,and granting it an unearned nobility from day one.
Yes, we did want to save the world for democracy, yes we did believe in the domino theory of communist aggression .....but we sure did pick the wrong war, the wrong side, the wrong people and the wrong place. Another chapter that has not been fully understood either.
But on some gut level much of the protest and violence of that era did have valid existential roots in that context. The powers that be (who were they in fact?) did have pretty tight grip on the national agenda. Our closed post WWII society broke open in the 1960's and was shattered. We held it together after all, in time. What was that glue that allowed us to cross those 1960's divides?
But now we find ourselves broken again after the past few decades of the huge open borders demographic shift to reconsider who exactly is the American populace today? What is our glue. Where will these new numbers want to take this country today by their sheer plurality numbers? Unstable times ahead ....yet again.
Even Bill Gates says let's stop worrying about "climate change" after all, when there is neglect of far more immediate concerns compared to something that may or may not happen at some indefinite future time. How unsettling will that be to the younger generations, raised on decades of K-12 drowning polar bears and it is all our fault?
I believe that each constituency within ANTIFA has goals which can attract rational people, although the means of achieving the goal can be condemned. What concerns me the most is why are groups with quite different goals e.g. environmental, economic , race based, global issues, working in concert. What ideology or overriding goal would want to combine the various ANTIFA groups?
That is the question that needs to be answered. Many of us know what that answer is. Berney
"These are smart people, educated people and it runs like a cell right out of the anti-fascist tradecraft books of Europe in the 1970s, it doesn't have a head or hierarchy, but it has a lot of local leadership," the government insider explained. "The local apparatus has very good intelligence capabilities, but where their weaknesses are is in communication and using apps that allow for large group chats."
Wow. Not the deep dive I was hoping for. While extremely interesting, very shallow and somewhat dishonest. If you want to demonize ELF for using violent tactics, shouldn't you also own up to the use of violent tactics by your own groups you worked for, the FBI and CIA? Who killed Fred Hampton? LaVoy Finicum? Patrice Lumumba? Ngo Diem? Muamar Gaddafi? These are not the only concerning examples.
It is dishonest to say "direct action" means violence. I was an antiwar activist and anti globalization activist that was in large demonstrations with such people. People who advocated the harming of other human beings were immediately suspected of being agents provocateur or Feds. Some people felt direct action included property destruction, some felt it did not. To claim that direct action is necessarily personal violence or property destruction is not true. The mass actions did not and would self-police anyone trying to be violent or even those destroying property. I can't speak for now, but in the period Robert is writing about, direct action included things like large protests, sit-ins, disrupting speakers, blockading an intersection or event, and creating independent media. Think direct as in diy rather than trust the bought elected representatives, the corrupt media, or corporate experts.
As an antiwar activist raised on Catholic morality, I reject all personal violence, but I continue to be struck by the hypocrisy. Benjamin Netanyahu is overseeing a blatant genocide on our dime with our elected representatives and administration coerced into protecting and funding, but he is fine to be invited on talk shows and lavished standing ovations by our Congress. But we are supposed to look down on this guy for working with people who spike trees in an old growth forest and for writing a discussion about armed struggle? Did you know international law and Catholic teaching both permit armed struggle in certain circumstances? I will agree that putting the lives of workers in danger to protect the environment by tree spiking is wrong, but it is just a little rich to hear the condemnation come from a man who worked for the CIA and FBI. Tell us, Robert Eringer, is it wrong to use violence to advance a political agenda? Or only when ELF does it?
The real history of ANTIFA goes back to Jewish violent resistance groups in Europe in the wake of WWI. Might want to start there.
They’re just a bunch of out-of-control wannabe “rebels” in the throes of recycling someone else’s “revolution”— same anger, different hashtag."""""""""""""""""""
Does the above sound like the over educated wannabe's who decided a working city with a proven transportation grid (that was corrected when proved not to work) was NOT in the best interests of the people?
Think about it. Are you at that point where over 40 years of change because it is "organic" has led the city to a crushed economy, literally telling the tourists go away unless you can spend more money, money that the changed atmosphere no longer sustains?
They have morphed...... and want the failed Luddite experiment to replace their failure with 7 story high rise buildings????????
The failure of the name change to "Strong" is ironic since they are anything but.
They perpetuate this destructive, and partisan, need to divide the world into us vs. them. Which we may also become their unwitting participants by giving them undue attentions?
When they fail and the drive by media punts on 3rd down there has to be "hey what about"..... When they buy worker bees that could not make it on their own here should that also not be brought to attention?
There is a fine line. The opposition is once again stating "not enough was done" even in the face abject failure. They use un-informed people, stating we are you. A statement of intentional misdirection.
Where is the line? There are 2 directions back away or if you have the money bury with repeated facts the drive by's don't want to engage in.
Due attention is always appropriate. Undue attention is when we get dragged down to their level defensively responding on their terms. Yech. That is the devil in the details.
That is the time to channel our own Scott Jennings. That guy is masterful side-stepping their intentional gotcha hooks. JD Vance is doing a pretty darn good job too. Trump never misses a beat, except he does it with a 2x4.
When the masses are desperate, they will turn to such extremist causes. A lot of today's young people don't have the hope us older people did. Simple concept, too simple for many to grasp. Good luck.
Great, from the ground level, insights. Spy craft. So much about it, that we lay persons cannot imagine. The stresses, when intentionally living a double life. It must take its toll, eventually.
Wow, Robert, thank you. We need more articles like this because too many Santa Barbarans are very very ignorant about Antifa and defend it. I have a question. How did the Left take over what was originally anti-globalist and turn it into what it into the globalist/Marxist army it is today? My husband I were living in NYC during Occupy Wall Street and went to join the protest. As my husband says it was a carnival of protest against Wall Street misdeeds, from the left, right and center. There were the early Antifa types there, but they were so different than what we see now. Then during the Obama years we joined a Union Square protest against his NSA policies. The Left tried to take it over. We applauded that the organizers of it shooed those assholes out. And btw, we saw none of our liberal NYC media friends there. They didn't approve of protesting against Saint Barack. (I voted for him twice, but the Obama years drove me out of the Democratic Party.) Thank you.
Andrew Breitbart delved into Occupy Wall Street and looked for its connecting threads as well, in his documentary Occupy Unmasked though he reached other conclusions: https://archive.org/details/OccupyUnmasked_201708
May I then offer another take on OWS: From the outside looking in 3000 miles away, there was nothing even remotely coherent about OWS, except using as a brilliant cover up for the recently publicized and growing disparity between government union-bargained government employee compensation packages untouched by the 2008 crash, and those in the private sector that had been undone by the 2008 real estate/financial crash.
Then all the sudden seemingly out of no where, boom, fingers got pointed at "Wall Street" and the familiar oppressor/oppressed dichotomy was again decried through what could be called Democrat partisan political action running cover for the government employee unions and their sweetheart deals for their members.
Thus the story about the growing disparity between government employment and private sector employment compensation was swept from the front pages.
Wall Street needed fingers pointed at it.
I always see "Wall Street" as a voluntary participation relationship. Like going to a Las Vegas casino.
Nor do I think it was 100% Wall Street "greed" that drove the 2008 meltdown - I point my own fingers back to partisan government intervention with Clinton's community housing act, leading to SEIU and ACORN pressuring banks to make loans they never would have nor should have have made in the first place.
Only then did they try to mitigate their expected losses and the whole thing collapsed. There was such a prescient SNL sketch about all of this and the "liar's loan" scandals that drove this eventual collapse.
The 2008 SNL skit was pulled after pressure from George Soros, but all the players were present in the skit with a fine point drawn regarding all the 2008 meltdown contradictions: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2008/10/05/snl-skit-blames-democrats-financial-crisis
Let’s not forget the causation of the 2008 meltdown as a predicate of the sub prime mortgage crisis. Putting people in homes they can’t afford in order to score cheap political points led to financial disaster, which we all are paying for.
No, home ownership is not a right! Sadly, that dream is gone for many young families, especially here locally.
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/subprime-mortgage-crisis
Law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Btw, your view of it is much the same as our media friends at the time. And I came to view those friends as not people I could trust on what they said or wrote.
None of the protestors at OWS that I talked to would have disagreed with you. And I talked to no one who was there in, say, the way that people are at a No Kings march through being worked up. They were very informed people. There are always two protests — one you're in and one you read about,
Exactly. we got only the most inflammatory OWS sound bites 3000 miles away. This too was a time of great instability after the 2008 crash, just like the recent "covid" mass hysteria and the 2024 Trump election TDS hysteria.
Or having just re-watched the 1959 movie On the Beach, the Cold War nuclear annihilation hysteria that gripped us at that time was far more real and defined our own coming of age adulthoods, in far more real terms than this "climate change" hysteria defines later generations. But the same challenge, was the "hysteria" an intentional manipulation in both cases?
That is really the larger picture that deserves a lot more attention. How to best cope with times of uncertainty, other than the ease of pointing fingers looking for ready scapegoats.
Plus recognizing how much do our own choices and needs for "blame" perpetuate these less than healthy responses in our own hearts as well.I struggle with that one a lot too.
Ask me how it feels to be the only No on 50 yard sign in my neighborhood, which quickly spread to Yes on 50 signs sprouting up on all sides as an immediate response. Even the neighbor who asked where to get a No on 50 sign, never did. (Martin Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other" gets me through my own darker days.)
This has been a time to go back to our basic civics lessons and reminding ourselves how our government was intended to operate; not the gross distortion of the system that we have inherited today. Prop 50 being the most grotesque, current manipulation of all.
Phew, I for one am ready for a "renewal of vows" this coming 250th anniversary of our ever-changing Republic.
This is why you make me happy to see you here, elce. You always contribute so much rational informed thinking.
WE need to straighten out their thinking by NOT letting them do what they are doing!
Great article. Have you written a book of your stories?
Insightful and enlightening. Thank you for sharing your experiences. Blessings
Fascinating piece.
Robert - thank you! You’ve done something James Bond wanna-be’s don’t do - infiltrate the enemy & give us an inside look at the Antifa Freaka’s.
Rosebraugh was presumably - ‘public relations/press office’ rather than being part of their sabotage cells. Just as, if not more dangerous than the jerks carrying out their ‘missions’.
You were so right about the Montana farm, “But the Bureau didn’t bite. They wanted indictments, not experiments. Had they let me run the farm, we could have owned the movement.” Turning down the opportunity of getting the enemy together in one place to figure out how to crush them - short-sighted thinking.
‘What Craig Rosebraugh — America’s “number-one domestic terrorist”— needed most, I thought, was a hug.” yeah - with a noose
Btw - Rosebraugh’s book ‘Burning Rage of a Dying Planet’ is avail on Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/mrzwt27h
Excellent job Robert!
I always love reading about your days of infiltration in enemy camps. I wish Radcliffe and Patel would listen to some of your stories and use your experience to do some of the same.
I think your view here is too narrow. I recall the 60s, Peoples Liberation Front, Weather Underground, Black Panthers.... There were groups promoting violence, and there was much violence, but there were also many people who deplored violence but realized that the basic ideas behind these groups were, for the most part, pretty good. End the Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, and so on. Basically, any period of large scale social change is going to produce a violent fringe on both sides (the KKK, beginnings of the Aryan Nations). It's a natural human phenomenon. The groups that promote violence will often be parasitic on the more tempered but much larger movements. A couple of good reads by Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing give some idea about this: Prisons We Choose to Live Inside (a series of radio lectured from 1985) and The Sentimental Agents (a satirical novel on the human tendency to rally to support causes). Interestingly, there was almost no violence in the No Kings protests despite their size, and there were no arrests of No Kings protesters. The few arrests that did occur were MAGA types trying to attack them.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparative-analysis-violent-left-and-right-wing-extremist-groups
“Peoples Liberation Front, Weather Underground, Black Panthers.... the basic ideas behind these groups were, for the most part, pretty good.” Are you kidding - they should have all been hung!
Are you incapable of separating the ideas from the means? Or did you just get triggered by the terms and not get what I was saying?
The mandatory draft and the existential threat of a generation dying or getting maimed in Vietnam gave a very different energy also to the 1960's. But it was an era that we did survive, even when it felt the entire nation was getting ripped apart. And I see now in retrospect, it was.
There was a very interesting book called "War Time" (Fussel - military historian) about the intentional white-washing even of the WWII experience, that made it too easy to stumble into another generation-eating conflagration like Vietnam,and granting it an unearned nobility from day one.
Yes, we did want to save the world for democracy, yes we did believe in the domino theory of communist aggression .....but we sure did pick the wrong war, the wrong side, the wrong people and the wrong place. Another chapter that has not been fully understood either.
But on some gut level much of the protest and violence of that era did have valid existential roots in that context. The powers that be (who were they in fact?) did have pretty tight grip on the national agenda. Our closed post WWII society broke open in the 1960's and was shattered. We held it together after all, in time. What was that glue that allowed us to cross those 1960's divides?
But now we find ourselves broken again after the past few decades of the huge open borders demographic shift to reconsider who exactly is the American populace today? What is our glue. Where will these new numbers want to take this country today by their sheer plurality numbers? Unstable times ahead ....yet again.
Even Bill Gates says let's stop worrying about "climate change" after all, when there is neglect of far more immediate concerns compared to something that may or may not happen at some indefinite future time. How unsettling will that be to the younger generations, raised on decades of K-12 drowning polar bears and it is all our fault?
I believe that each constituency within ANTIFA has goals which can attract rational people, although the means of achieving the goal can be condemned. What concerns me the most is why are groups with quite different goals e.g. environmental, economic , race based, global issues, working in concert. What ideology or overriding goal would want to combine the various ANTIFA groups?
That is the question that needs to be answered. Many of us know what that answer is. Berney
BG: Fabians; FBI; or those über-powerful public employee unions, plotting to expand Big Government to critical mass. Those are my guesses.
I'll bite. Who do you think is behind this current pack of roving contrarians?
Hmmm…good insight into spy tradecraft, but my understanding is Antifa goes back to the German Nazis days…
WHY DOES THE ANTIFA FLAG MIMIC THAT OF THE NAZIS?
COINCIDENCE?
https://x.com/fnowisthetime/status/1983237435392921702?s=57
https://x.com/fnowisthetime/status/1983237733217907184?s=61
Was 'Nazism' ever truly destroyed?
"These are smart people, educated people and it runs like a cell right out of the anti-fascist tradecraft books of Europe in the 1970s, it doesn't have a head or hierarchy, but it has a lot of local leadership," the government insider explained. "The local apparatus has very good intelligence capabilities, but where their weaknesses are is in communication and using apps that allow for large group chats."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/antifa-arrests-coming-riots-suburbs
Welcome to the no borders, pro pedo, destroy ICE, socialist movement - ANTIFA (arm of Democratic Party)…
Wow. Not the deep dive I was hoping for. While extremely interesting, very shallow and somewhat dishonest. If you want to demonize ELF for using violent tactics, shouldn't you also own up to the use of violent tactics by your own groups you worked for, the FBI and CIA? Who killed Fred Hampton? LaVoy Finicum? Patrice Lumumba? Ngo Diem? Muamar Gaddafi? These are not the only concerning examples.
It is dishonest to say "direct action" means violence. I was an antiwar activist and anti globalization activist that was in large demonstrations with such people. People who advocated the harming of other human beings were immediately suspected of being agents provocateur or Feds. Some people felt direct action included property destruction, some felt it did not. To claim that direct action is necessarily personal violence or property destruction is not true. The mass actions did not and would self-police anyone trying to be violent or even those destroying property. I can't speak for now, but in the period Robert is writing about, direct action included things like large protests, sit-ins, disrupting speakers, blockading an intersection or event, and creating independent media. Think direct as in diy rather than trust the bought elected representatives, the corrupt media, or corporate experts.
As an antiwar activist raised on Catholic morality, I reject all personal violence, but I continue to be struck by the hypocrisy. Benjamin Netanyahu is overseeing a blatant genocide on our dime with our elected representatives and administration coerced into protecting and funding, but he is fine to be invited on talk shows and lavished standing ovations by our Congress. But we are supposed to look down on this guy for working with people who spike trees in an old growth forest and for writing a discussion about armed struggle? Did you know international law and Catholic teaching both permit armed struggle in certain circumstances? I will agree that putting the lives of workers in danger to protect the environment by tree spiking is wrong, but it is just a little rich to hear the condemnation come from a man who worked for the CIA and FBI. Tell us, Robert Eringer, is it wrong to use violence to advance a political agenda? Or only when ELF does it?
The real history of ANTIFA goes back to Jewish violent resistance groups in Europe in the wake of WWI. Might want to start there.
This paper will go out of business soon.
Lol. I guess you're referring to the lack of real estate and plastic surgery ads that Santa Barbara's other papers have.
Whaaaaat?
MP: Are you referring to SB Current, which is always engaging and enlivening in this one-agenda town?
They’re just a bunch of out-of-control wannabe “rebels” in the throes of recycling someone else’s “revolution”— same anger, different hashtag."""""""""""""""""""
Does the above sound like the over educated wannabe's who decided a working city with a proven transportation grid (that was corrected when proved not to work) was NOT in the best interests of the people?
Think about it. Are you at that point where over 40 years of change because it is "organic" has led the city to a crushed economy, literally telling the tourists go away unless you can spend more money, money that the changed atmosphere no longer sustains?
They have morphed...... and want the failed Luddite experiment to replace their failure with 7 story high rise buildings????????
The failure of the name change to "Strong" is ironic since they are anything but.
They perpetuate this destructive, and partisan, need to divide the world into us vs. them. Which we may also become their unwitting participants by giving them undue attentions?
Undue attention???
When they fail and the drive by media punts on 3rd down there has to be "hey what about"..... When they buy worker bees that could not make it on their own here should that also not be brought to attention?
There is a fine line. The opposition is once again stating "not enough was done" even in the face abject failure. They use un-informed people, stating we are you. A statement of intentional misdirection.
Where is the line? There are 2 directions back away or if you have the money bury with repeated facts the drive by's don't want to engage in.
handing you back the political soap box...
Due attention is always appropriate. Undue attention is when we get dragged down to their level defensively responding on their terms. Yech. That is the devil in the details.
That is the time to channel our own Scott Jennings. That guy is masterful side-stepping their intentional gotcha hooks. JD Vance is doing a pretty darn good job too. Trump never misses a beat, except he does it with a 2x4.
I am amazed! Only one subject, much easier to follow. OK so who’s the leader, where’s their home base?
When the masses are desperate, they will turn to such extremist causes. A lot of today's young people don't have the hope us older people did. Simple concept, too simple for many to grasp. Good luck.
Great, from the ground level, insights. Spy craft. So much about it, that we lay persons cannot imagine. The stresses, when intentionally living a double life. It must take its toll, eventually.