. The revival of domestic intelligence operations amounts to rescinding the laws which were passed to guard against COINTELPRO type attacks against dissent and includes forgery of political messages and other such style methods. These methods do not fight crime, they
crimes!
One final note. The steps detailed in handling informants of requiring a statement from people that they are not connected with law enforcement may no longer work, given the new domestic intelligence climate.
"The instability of laws is really an immense evil." --Thomas Jefferson
The persistent orgy of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun legislation rammed through Congress under the guise of "public safety" beginning with the National Firearms Control Act of 1934 has, by our analysis of historical precedent, only one aim; the disarmament of the American middle class. The reason for this is evident in the increasing irrationality of our laws.
When laws are undefined by virtue of being based on undefinable abstractions they are rendered un-judicable and thus subject to capricious enforcement. The purpose of laws based on whim rather than reason is to create fear and uncertainty and lead everyone to believe that they are guilty of "something." The creation, and automatic assumption, of guilt in the minds of the citizens in the modus operandi of all evolving tyrannies.
Those who refuse the premise of de facto guilt and whose actions are based on reason and morality rather than legal whimsy are considered reactionaries. When they armed they are considered dangerous subversive.
Stripped of their sophist window-dressings of public safety, crime, and most recently, "child safety" the philosophical frameworks of anti-gun legislation are starkly obvious: undermining self-sufficiency by making everyone dependent upon government for protection (which NECESSITATES the abrogation of individual rights); and eliminating the threat of effective resistance by those who refuse to submit.
In December, 1993, the United Nations Disarmament Commission adopted a working paper specifically designed to impose controls on the gun trade in the United States as a way to combat "international arms trafficking." Although the United States representative on the 184 member Disarmament Commission initially opposed it, on May 9, 1994, the Clinton administration directed the U.S. member to allow consensus adoption of the proposal. The U.N. Disarmament Commission's draft proposal has already been scheduled for debate in the U.N. General Council's spring 1995 meeting. Its adoption is a forgone conclusion.
The working paper declares that governments individually "find themselves impotent" to deal with global arms trafficking, and proposes the "harmonization" of gun-control standards world-wide.
For one thing, it says, "The arms permitted for civilian use...should be subject to controls at all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the time they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain subject to monitoring and control by the United Nations controlling body". The working paper also proposes strengthening government controls on the export and import of arms, stricter regulation of arms dealers and establishment of a global computer firearms database.
Note the specific use of the qualification: "The arms permitted for civilian use..." PERMITTED. By whom? By the United Nations, and by default, the federal government.
Because the United States is a member of the United Nations, U.N. General Assembly resolutions bind the laws of the United States by force of treaty. When the regulatory provisions of a treaty conflict with the U.S. Constitution the treaty, not the Constitution, is the law of the land.
When adopted by resolution the U.N. Disarmament Commission's findings will accomplish what the collectivists and statists of our illegitimate federal government have failed to do for the past 60 years: make null and void the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In discussing the implied powers of Congress it is important to bear in mind that they may be derived not merely from the specific grants of power to Congress but also from the clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress "to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers, and ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF."
Among these "other powers" vested in the departments or officers of the government is the treaty-making power, which resides in the President and the Senate. Thus Congress may derive legislative authority from the power to carry out the provisions of a treaty when it could not derive it from any of the specific grants of legislative power enumerated in Article I. Article VI makes clear such a provision:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." (Emphasis added).
These points are clearly emphasized by the judicial history of the two migratory-birds acts passed by Congress. In 1913 Congress passed an act forbidding, save under strict regulations, the killing of migratory birds. The control of bird life is not one of the powers which the Constitution grants to Congress, and two lower federal courts held the law unconstitutional: United States v. Shauver (1914) and United States v. McCullagh (1915). These cases have been generally regarded as correct.
In 1916 we entered into a treaty with Great Britain by the terms of which United States and Canada agreed to protect migratory birds and to propose legislation for that purpose. In 1918 Congress passed such a law, much more elaborate than the act of 1913, forbidding the killing, capture, or selling of birds included within the provisions of the treaty, except in accordance with regulations set by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated suitable regulations; and the State of Missouri, on the ground that her reserved powers were invaded by the act, brought action to enjoin a game warden of the United States from enforcing the provisions of the act and the rules established by the Secretary of Agriculture: Missouri v. Holland (1920). The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that Congress may regulate bird life as a means of carrying into effect the provisions of a treaty when it could not regulate it as an independent exercise of legislative power.
This broad doctrine has been sharply attacked. In 1954 the Senate by only a narrow margin defeated the so-called Bricker Amendment, one section of which provided that "A treaty shall be effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty." This would reverse Missouri v. Holland, and was so intended.
An important problem raised by Missouri v. Holland is the extent to which, if at all, Congress is free to make treaties which limited the rights of citizens guaranteed them by the Constitution. If Congress is freed from the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court held, they are also freed from the limitations of the Bill of Rights.
It is significant that during the debates on ratification of the Constitution (1787-1788) the anti-federalists vehemently opposed Article VI and drafted an amendment prohibiting Congress from enforcing provisions of treaties which contradicted the Constitution:
That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing
laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid
until such laws shall be repealed, or made conformable to such
treaty; neither shall any treaties be valid which are in
contradiction to the constitution of the United States, or the
constitutions of the several states.
Pennsylvania Packet (Philadelphia), December 18, 1787
The anti-federalists recognized the potential for tyranny in the Constitution. It is they to whom we are indebted for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Their arguments in opposition to federalism were, in light of legislative, executive and judicial developments over the past 130 years, prophetic.
The legislative and special interest attacks on the Second Amendment over the past 60 years pale in comparison to what will occur in 1995. When the United Nations General Assembly approves the Disarmament Commission's report and it is signed by the United States it will have the force of treaty and become "the law of the land." The uncertain PRIVILEGE of firearms ownership will depend on the range-of-the-moment whims of some Cambodian, Mexican or Central African Republic bureaucrat.
The inalienable right of every free man to keep and bear arms in defense of his life, liberty and property against tyrannical government will evaporate as quickly as the ink dries on the treaty paper abrogating it. The RESISTER has only one comment on this: A piece of paper cannot stop a bullet.
November 14, 1994, ARMY TIMES published on official denial by the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, stating that Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. Cunningham's Combat Arms Survey (the complete text of which was printed in The RESISTER, Vol.I, No.2) issued to Marines at Twentynine Palms, CA, on May 10, 1994 "...was meant to test their opinion of possible nontraditional missions."
School spokesman John Sanders said; "I personally feel (question 46) was a bit abrupt. However, it is trying to get at a tough issue: unit cohesiveness, and whether a member understands a lawful or unlawful order."
What Mr. Sanders fails to mention is that the questionnaire (or a trial balloon variant) had been in circulation since September 1993 and was initially targeted toward Navy special operations units (SEAL teams, including SEAL Team Six, the Navy's SFOD-D). He also fails to mention that rumors concerning the questionnaire had been rampant in the Special Operations community since October, 1993, and among the various civilian firearms publications since February, 1994.
The official position of the Naval Postgraduate School is that the questionnaire was meant to test whether the Marines understood the principle that U.S. law prohibits the federal military from becoming involved in domestic law enforcement. Mr. Sanders said that reports about the questionnaire reflecting an administration plan to disarm Americans are, "Total hogwash."
Margaret Roth, author of the Army Times article, quotes Mr. Sanders as saying: "The now-infamous Question 46 purely was hypothetical, designed to see if Marines understood the limits of their constitutional authority."
This however is dissimulation. The Department of the Navy is fully aware that they are exempt from Posse Comitatus (10 USC 375).
In point of fact, between 1989 and 1993 SEAL Team Six conducted at least four unilateral crack-house "take-downs" in the Los Angeles area and participated in at least four others with LAPD and DEA tactical units.
The Naval Postgraduate School is on record as stating they will "short circuit" the normal release procedures for Lt. Cmdr. Cunningham's thesis on "nontraditional" uses of the federal military. "It's certainly not our intent to keep this from anyone," said Mr. Sanders. We are all waiting.
Due to the United States Army occupation of Haiti the article, _Why_NAFTA_ is_Anti-Capitalism_, was replaced by, _The_Truth_About_Haiti_. We are expanding the orginal article about NAFTA to include the recent signing of the GATT treaty and in will appear in Vol.I, No4. We reserve the right to make abrupt changes in scheduled articles due to ongoing developments. --The Staff
November 30, 1994, the Canadian Government announced it will ban rifles and handguns not used for hunting or sport and introduced universal registration of firearms to crack down on "a rise in armed violence" (They did not specify by whom).
Gun owners will be forced to register their firearms on a computerized system that will contain data on guns and their owners for the purpose of police monitoring.
Justice Minister Allan Rock announced; "Canadians do not want to live in a society where they feel they need to own a gun to protect themselves. Canadians do not want to follow the approach to firearms taken by the United States." (In Canada, government speaks for individuals).
Justice Rock said he will propose legislation in February that will ban almost all handguns currently on sale in Canada, because they have no legitimate "sporting purpose." Every five years owners will have to provide proof to government officials that they have handguns for a legitimate reason. Over 200 models of rifles and handguns will be banned January 1, 1995.
Sound familiar? Try NAZI Germany, 1938.
Dear Patriots:
Our open letter this quarter is in response to the many queries we have received asking us to explain more fully our philosophy and our positions derived therefrom. Ordinarily we are not prone to offer explanations for our beliefs; you either agree with them or you do not and in the free market of ideas you are free to read The RESISTER or not according to your values. Notwithstanding, without exception these queries were honest, rational, intelligently phrased and polite and therefore deserve a response in kind. Of necessity our response in this forum must be generalized but we will cover the major points in question.
The Special Forces Underground is a description not a title. The opposition loves titles. Their narrow clerk-minds thrive on trivia and they must have something (preferably an acronym) to pigeonhole and categorize. Our organization does have a name. We prefer to let the opposition work for it.
Questions about tolerating disagreement within our ranks over one or more philosophical positions seem to imply that force is an intrinsic element holding our organization together. The underground in a voluntary association of individuals of like mind working in cooperation for our own SELF INTEREST against the forces of federal (and, when at work in this country, international) tyranny threatening our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. This will result in ancillary benefit to others but they do not motivate our actions. Ours is a capitalist resistance; do better than us, join us voluntarily, or get out of our way.
Our philosophical framework is objectivism (the rational morality of self interest--life). Our political philosophy is grounded in the works of John Locke, the Founding Fathers of this nation and Auberon Herbert (government as servant, not master--liberty). Our economic philosophy is grounded in Carl Menger, Ludwig Von Mises, and Henry Hazlitt (the guarantor of individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism--property).
For a discussion of our opposition to democracy we refer you to the editorial on page 3.
Our belief in isolationism is not xenophobic, it is practical. The United Nations and its underlying philosophy of one-world government and socialist economics is an abominable evil. There is no compelling national interest underlying the foreign policy of the federal government. The conditions of treaties made with foreign governments force changes in our laws and override the Constitution. Foreign aid is nothing less than forced redistribution of this nation's wealth to impoverished socialist gangs and Third World savages. The belief of the internationalists is that we "owe something" to the rest of the world; most recently, food to starving irrelevancies in Somalia, political stability to ex-French slaves in Haiti, and guns to religious hoodlums in Bosnia: We deny this.
Our opposition to altruism is that it is moral cannibalism. It may be true that from a philosophical standpoint altruism cannot exist; that does not prevent the cannibals from attempting to impose universally its premise of self-sacrifice. Altruism permits no construct of a self-respecting self- supporting man. Altruism permits no view of man except as sacrificial animal, victim and parasite. Politically, altruists demand democracy knowing the consequence is statism. Socially, altruists demand egalitarianism knowing the consequence is tribalism. Economically, altruists demand collectivism knowing the consequence is slavery. Altruism is anti-life, anti-liberty and anti- property.
Pull politics is the logical result of a mixed economy (part capitalist, part socialist). It is the politics of lobbies, special interests and factions. It is political gangsterism. It is the defining characteristic of the Democrat and Republican parties.
Statism is political gang rule. It is a system of institutionalized force and perpetual "cold" civil war among rival gangs vying for favors, subsidies, entitlements and legislation to extort their own advantages by force from all other groups. The foundation of statism is fear resulting from a deliberately frightening and demoralizing tangle of incomprehensible, contradictory and therefore un-judicable laws. It abrogates individual rights at the same time it empowers (here the word is used _correctly_) tribes and gangs. The politics of statism is dictatorship. The economics of statism is looting. Statism defines how the federal government works.
We DO NOT advocate the violent overthrow of the United States Government. (Although we believe there is cause, in theory, by virtue of the government's cumulative improbity over the last 133 years, and sufficient historical and philosophical precedent, by virtue of the Declaration of Independence and the writings of the Founding Fathers, to justify it.) We do advocate resisting government tyranny at all levels. We DO NOT advocate the initiation of force in doing so. We do advocate appropriate force-in-kind in retaliation (self defense). Our goal is to see the federal government muzzled, shackled and cast back into its constitutional prison."
We do advocate active resistance against the United Nations.
Life, Liberty, and Property;
THE EDITOR
Rights are a moral principle, and each man has inalienable rights over himself, his faculties and his possessions. This moral principle, this objective reality, means that a man has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and therefore his own labor. Furthermore, a man has a right to the productive use of his labor and faculties. Because a man has these rights he must respect these rights in all others. Since each man is sovereign over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.
In a rational society founded of the moral principle of rights there can be no force or fraud in the relationship between sovereign individuals. When rights are properly exercised they take nothing from anyone, nor do they compel anyone to act in a manner detrimental to their own self-interest. Notice that the rational exercise of each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by an individual takes nothing from, or compels, other individuals in their rational exercise of these rights.
Only individuals possess rights. Groups, being nothing more than a number of individuals can, in themselves, possess no rights other than those which are possessed and exercised individually by each member. Hence, a faction has no rights; nor does a gang, a mob, a tribe, a state or a nation. A group may hove interests but those interests do not assume the moral legitimacy of rights. To assert otherwise is to descend into abstract subjectivism, an evasion of reality, where a society is ruled by the-range-of- the-moment whims of its members, the majority gang of the moment, the current demagogue or dictator.
Government is force. No matter how benign or dictatorial, behind every law or regulation or act there is a gun. The authors of the United States Constitution were fully aware of this fact. They recognized that government in a rational society must derive its delegated powers by the consent of the governed and that these powers must be specifically defined by law--the Constitution; delimited by a law higher than government--the inalienable rights of man; and dispersed by permanent separation of powers. For these reasons they specifically and intentionally REJECTED democracy as a system of government. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers, men devoted to the primacy of the source of all rights, man's faculties (which means; reason), was the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Democracy is the antithesis of the natural rights of man. The philosophical premise of democracy is egalitarianism; not political egalitarianism which holds all men equal before the law (justice), but METAPHYSICAL egalitarianism, the belief that all men are equal in all things. This last construct is such an obvious falsehood that it can carry only one meaning: the hatred of reason. Democracy, by its very definition - rule by majority - is the notion that" might makes right." The exercise of democracy reduces men to mere numbers, and the faction or gang which gathers the greater number of men to its fleeting cause wields the government gun against the minority.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a
pure Democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small
number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in
person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common
passion or interest will in almost every case, be felt by the
majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from
the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious
individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property,
and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have
been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have
patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed,
that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political
rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and
assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their
passions.
--Publius (James Madison), The Federalist X, 1787
Indeed, specific safeguards were designed into the Constitution to prevent the subversion of the constitutional republic and the natural rights of man by political party gang warfare and special interest factionalism inherent in a democracy: the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1) and the election of senators by State Legislatures (Article I, Section 3).
In the case of the former it was specifically intended that the head of the Executive branch of the federal government be elected by Electors chosen by each state legislature in equal proportion to its representation in Congress; NOT by popular vote. This ensured : "No faction or combination can bring about the election. It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity. In all human probability, no better method of election could have been devised." (James Iredell, North Carolina Ratification Cttee., 1788)
The latter provision ensured the logical effect of popular election of members to the House of Representatives (whim based legislation) was offset by representatives elected by state legislature to the Senate to guard against Executive and House encroachment on state sovereignty: "The election of one branch of the Federal, by the State Legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one-third, will lesson the faculty of combination and may put a stop to intrigues." (James Madison, Virginia Ratification Cttee., June, 1788)
The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President. This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto- communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man.
The irrationality of democracy was stated most eloquently by Auberon Herbert in his London address on March 9, 1880, before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, entitled; CHOICES BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROTECTION: "How should it happen that the individual should be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited rights?"
--Alexander Davidson
One of the hallmarks of second-handers is the expropriation of symbols and ideals celebrating an excellence of character and originality of thought they themselves no not possess and can never hope to emulate. Thus did "Bronze Bruce" come to be moved to that temple of second-handness, the new USASOC building.
The mindless actions of second-handers always reveal their true goal, to sacrifice excellence on their altar of mediocrity. Despite their abstract rationalizations and unfocused rhetoric justifying the movement of "Bronze Bruce" from JFK Plaza to the new USASOC building LTG Scott clearly validates the old saying; "actions speak louder than words."
"Bronze Bruce"used to be a symbol celebrating the professionalism, idealism and heroism to those SPECIAL FORCES soldiers who died fighting the ideological source of the New World Order, the egalitarian evil of communism. He now sits in the breezeway of a building infested with internationalists Quislings and politically-correct Milquetoasts who consider Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations social workers, Ranger infantry, and aviation prima donnas the equal Special Forces soldiers and their OSS progenitors.
I remember standing before the recently erected "Bronze Bruce" following my graduation form the "Q-course" in 197X silently reaffirming my oath to defend the constitution and pledging myself to be the equal or better of every fallen hero therein represented. I never passed "Bronze Bruce" from that day froward with out pausing to read the names inscribed on the placards around his base.
Next time you pass the now empty JFK Plaza pause to take a look at what was once a place of quiet honor and silent pride but is now a shrieking testimony to the actions of second-handers who pretend among themselves they lead us, yet who know in their hearts we despise them.
The Editor
-plus-
Our Usual Features
Ask for the Spring Issue in April; somebody will have it.
Sunday, 18 September, 1994, as Special Forces soldiers of Task Force Raleigh (3rd SFGA) at the Intermediate Support Base in Guantanamo Cuba were making their final equipment checks, charging their magazines and cross- loading their excess team gear and ammunition among team members, GEN Wayne Downing, CinC United States Special Operations Command, wandered through tent city offering words of inspiration. His most prophetic statement was: "Special Forces is going to make history in Haiti."
True. On 19 September, 1994, for the first time in history, at the behest of the racists of the Congressional Black Caucus, their communist TransAfrica allies, and in the name of the United Nations, the executive branch of the United States government willingly and knowingly, in violation of the war making powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution, deployed the United States Army to Haiti for the expressed purpose of installing a COMMUNIST government and ensuring its success by force of arms.
The Intelligence Estimates issued with pre-invasion Operations Plans and the Intelligence Annexes issued with Operations Orders to units planning for the 18 September, 1994, invasion were worse than useless. Summary descriptions of various political factions were largely based on refugee debriefs, official State Department political analyses and United Nations reports of alleged "human rights" abuse rather than fact.
An indicator of just how false the pre-occupation press coverage and finished political intelligence had occurred in mid-August. United States Ambassador to Haiti, William Swing invited expatriate Americans living in Haiti to the embassy for a meeting to discuss their views on the impending United States invasion to restore Aristide. Mr. Terry Anderson, an Independent Baptist missionary who has lived in Haiti for over 10 years and who was present at Swing's meeting told one of our observers that the meeting was a farce.
"Everybody present," recounted Anderson, "emphatically opposed both the invasion and bringing back Aristide." "For over an hour," he continued, "we told him about Aristide's past, his lunatic ravings, his communist connections, and the necklacing on his political opponents, on his orders, by his followers. We told him that since the coup no American had been threatened, but when Aristide was president it wasn't safe to walk the streets at night. We told him of Aristide's hatred of the United States and even showed him transcripts of his speeches where he calls the United States a 'demon' nation. Swing never responded to anything we tried to tell him. He ended the meeting without comment."
With rare exceptions whatever was printed, televised or broadcast about conditions in Haiti prior to the occupation was a deliberate lie. The hysterical anti-Cedras propaganda campaign waged by the American media throughout the spring and summer of 1994 (and mirrored in intelligence documentation issued to units deploying to Haiti) was carefully crafted to portray the followers of Aristide's Lavalas movement as defenseless puppy- huggers desperately trying to bring "democracy" to Haiti while enduring brutal "right-wing" terror and oppression at the hands of the Forces Armee d'Haiti (FAd'H), their Attaches, and the Front for the Advancement of the Haitian People (FRAPH). The truth is exactly the opposite.
In order to define what the Lavalas movement is, and who belongs to it, it is helpful to place it in context with American society.
If every street gang, vagrant, opportunistic criminal, welfare moocher, labor union agitator and unemployed layabout, homosexual, drug addict, ethnic tribalist, and other assorted street garbage formed a loose political coalition; whose cadre consisted of high school and college "students" putting into practice the collectivist lessons of their teachers and professors; the leader of this organization was an insane TV evangelist; and this "movement" was lent legitimacy by some foreign government and received sympathetic coverage from the media; this, then, would define Aristide's Lavalas movement.
These are "the people" upon whom the media, the Clinton administration and communist special interest groups in the United States adore and lavish so much attention on. Simply put, the Lavalas are the lazy, inept, stupid, corrupt, opportunistic and incompetent of Haitian society. Predictably, their understanding of democracy is nearly perfect: the biggest mob rules, therefore the biggest mob makes the rules and grabs the loot.
Whenever communists comprehend that their evil has been recognized for what it is they simply change their lexicon. What was once called state planning is now called "managed competition." What was once called world peace is now called the New World Order, In like manner, what was called communism is now called "democracy."
The vilification of General Cedras and his political supporters is descriptive of the ultimate goal of the United Nations directed occupation of Haiti: destruction of the Haitian middle class in order to bring Haiti into the collectivist "world community."
the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH) has been universally reviled by the American media and the communist propaganda machine as a paramilitary extremist organization. Because news reports leading up to the occupation focused almost entirely on its alleged campaign of terror waged against "the people" it is illustrative to define what FRAPH was and who made up its membership.
Although FRAPH was officially established as a political party in 1993, it actually dated back to the mid 1980's. It was originally founded as an anti-communist resistance movement coincident with the rise of the communist "Little Church" liberation theology movement run by Aristide.
The FRAPH leadership was largely ex-military. FRAPH membership was a representative cross section of the Haitian middle class, consisting mainly of property owners businessmen, farmers, tradesmen, craftsmen, and both blue and white collar workers. The equivalent of FRAPH, in an American context, would be the VFW and the American Legion forming a political party. The hated Attaches were in fact nothing more than a community watch organization that augmented FAd'H Casernes and Advanced Posts. In other words, FRAPH represented the interests of those Haitians who were reasonably competent and intelligent and who were, by Haitian standards, successful. Their unforgivable crime was defending their success and livelihoods against the envious.
Simply put, the FAd'H, FRAPH and Attaches represented the competent, able and successful of Haitian society and they did hesitate to defend their interests against the moochers, looters and parasites coalesced as the Lavalas movement. Then the United States Army under the command of the United Nations arrived and threw them to the jackals.
In early October Special Forces ODAs fanned out to establish United States presence in the outlying towns. They were greeted by hysterical mobs jogging through the street singing in unison in typical African fashion. The words to the most popular song were self explanatory to any with the ears to listen; "When Titid (Aristide) gets back you're going to pay, we'll have our revenge."
The reason for the hysteria was quite simple. The Lavalas believed that the Americans had arrived to allow them to do whatever they wanted; loot businesses, expropriate and redistribute property, and murder the FAd'H, FRAPH and Attaches. It was a belief grounded in their observation of American actions.
The communist and United Nations propaganda about Haiti defined the operational parameters for Special Forces units occupying small towns and cities in the hinterland.
The first order of business was to disarm the FAd'H. Since this action normally occurred in direct sight of a shrieking mob of "the people" this would incite them into a murderous frenzy and more often then not the disarmed Haitian soldiers had to be physically protected from "people's justice." In consequence many Haitian soldiers deserted at the first convenient opportunity in justifiable fear of their lives, and those who remained at their casernes played a quiet game of of passive resistance and feigned incompetence.
The second order of business was to gain de facto control over the political and judicial system. This was generally accomplished by holding a "town meeting" where officials of the disposed government were seated before "the people." Although ostensibly chaired by the detachment commander this "town meeting" actually run by Lavalas gangsters who put forth an agenda fed to them by priests and catholic lay workers of the "Little Church" movement. Through threats and intimidation backed up by the presence of U.S. soldiers the existing political and judicial structure was effectively demolished. Without exception the theme of these meetings revolved around the "people's demands" that the FAd'H, FRAPH and the Attaches be disarmed.
the third order of business was the disarming of the Haitian middle class. (Here, context is extremely important. Under Haitian law prior to the occupation it was legal to virtually any weapon one desired short of crew served served weapons so long as one kept it in one's home for personal protection. This means, possession of a select fire Galil, or an Uzi. was legal was legal so long as one had the necessary permit issued by the FAd'H. In other words, if you could afford it you could own it. Attaches and police auxiliaries were frequently issued (that means they signed for) M-1 rifles and CS grenades in connection with their official duties. These weapons were kept in their homes.)
Weapons confiscation proceeded on the basis of lists of "enemies of the people" (known or suspected FRAPH members, Attaches, businessmen and property owners) supplied to the detachment by Lavalas "delegates," priests, State Department USAID workers and, in more than one instance, American journalists. Additional lists were supplied by Christian Peacemaking Teams, an organization with close ties to the Communist Party United States of America (CPUSA) and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and whom Special forces detachments were ordered by Joint Special Operations Task Force (which took its orders from the United Nations) to render every assistance and support.
Warrantless searches of residences for weapons "caches" were generally based on rumor and anonymous "tips." With rare exceptions these searches turned up nothing. Subsequent to these searches the targeted residences would be looted by "the people." The weapons buy-back program came to be referred to as the "Snitch-off-a-Relative Program." Teen-age hoodlums would either rob the houses of their relatives and sell the weapons to the Americans, or lead detachment members to relative's houses, break into the house in their presence, and sell the weapons on the spot.
Current United Nations plans call for a continued presence of Special Forces in Haiti for at least two years. 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) will maintain a continuous presence in Haiti of one augmented Forward Operations Base (FOB(+)). Both 1st SFGA and 5th SFGA will have an Advanced Operations Base (AOB(+)) OPCON to 3rd SFG's FOB(+), alternating six month rotations. In addition, both the 19th SFGA and 20th SFGA (National Guard) will be federalized in early January, 1995; each providing an AOB(+) OPCON to 3rd SFG's FOB(+) in Haiti.
By the time the United Nations declares Haiti "a stable and secure environment for democracy" a majority of United States Army Special Forces soldiers will have had extensive training and experience in internal security operations and maintaining "domestic order."
The following is an synthesis of several reports forwarded by our members currently deployed to Haiti.
Immediately upon arrival in an operational area we met with senior non- commissioned officers of the FAd'H and arranged a meeting with senior representatives of FAd'H, Attaches and FRAPH. This was not as easy as it sounds given the treatment these groups had received in Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien in late September. It called for a very blunt cold-pitch describing our hatred of communism and our official mission. Dicey' but when we explained how we could help them they almost always agreed.
The first thing we did was identify the most active anti-communists in the Attaches and FRAPH and told them to take long vacations and go visit relatives on the other side of the island.
Second, we informed them about the plans and timetables for weapons confiscation and told them how to disappear their functional firearms while keeping broken and otherwise useless available to sell during the weapons buy- back program.
Third, we identified the Lavalas leadership, their friends and associates, and collected from the FAd'H any information they had on them including criminal records.
Fourth, we told FRAPH members to stay out of politics, mind their jobs and businesses and let the communists expose their true agendas. This was risky, but in the towns where this plan was implemented _every_ violent crime involving politics was directly attributable to the Lavalas.
Fifth, we waged a clandestine offensive against the Lavalas (details omitted; ed) which in our operational areas managed to drive at least the leadership back underground.
Finally, we have established an escape line to help FAd'H, ex-Attaches and ex-FRAPH members under threat of arrest from the communists reach relative safety in the Dominican Republic.
I read with great interest the philosophical position of The RESISTER. While I find most of your positions compatible with my own, I get the sense that you would not tolerate any disagreement from within your "ranks," even if such disagreement revolved around even one solitary position outlined in your publication's philosophical statement.
I am a patriotic American who has never served in the military. I was too young for Viet Nam, and chose not to volunteer after the draft was discontinued. However I would never have refused to serve if called upon by my country.
Returning to the synopsis of your philosophy, which recently appeared in an issue of G. Gordon Liddy's Liddy Letter, which I subscribe to, I'd like to ask you a few questions. I hope you'll be kind enough to respond to them.
Unless I misunderstand your statement, how is it you can favor strict constitutionalism while opposing democracy? Are you referring to "pure democracy," the democratic process or the right of the people, provided for the Constitution, to freely elect their representatives?
Please explain what you mean when you say you oppose internationalism. Pardon my ignorance if your intended meaning should be obvious to me.
How is it that you oppose altruism, something which from a philosophical standpoint cannot exist? If there is any motive for carrying out any good or charitable action, one cannot claim to be altruistic; people do good or "right" things because it makes them feel or look good. Even the sacrifice of Christ could not be considered altruistic. That does not negate to value of His profoundly beneficent act of self-sacrifice.
What are "pull politics?"
You cite your position as being in favor of isolationism. Under what circumstances would it be in the interest of the United States or the Special Forces Underground to take any kind of military action, particularly as regards the issue of defending against "...all enemies, foreign and domestic?" And please define your view of which person(s), Group(s) or government(s) would be considered by you to be our enemies.
Why do you stand in opposition to statism?
Under what circumstances would the Special Forces Underground attempt an overthrow of a _democratically_ elected _American_ government, presuming you have the manpower and weaponry for undertaking such an operation?
Frank D. Williams Tinley Park, IL
We selected your letter to represent those that have asked essentially the same questions. See: OPEN LETTER, and the editorial; DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICS OF TYRANNY.
EDITOR
As soldiers of this great republic we have all taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The reason for this oath is so the military of this republic will be dedicated only to the very thing that created, embodies and is the soul of this republic; the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that does not adhere to it is null and void upon enactment.
At this time in our history we have elected representatives that are attacking what we have sworn to defend. These representatives are ignoring the very document that has allowed them to serve. They are creating laws that they feel are correct and needful regardless of what the people want or ask for. They do this with total disregard for the supreme law that they have sworn to uphold and defend. The only way they can do this is to disregard the Constitution and enact laws that give them power and control over the true government of this republic; its citizens. Their disregard for the Constitution shows them to be criminals and traitors who knowingly break their oath to the supreme law of the land and to the people who elected them.
If our politicians have committed treason would it also be treason if soldiers adhered to their oath and defended the Constitution against them?
It is time for every free citizen who knows and recognizes the true law and government of this great republic to stand up and retake the reins of power and put our nation back on a constitutional path.
Jefe Sonrisa USAJFKSWCS
I agree that we have arrived at a point in out history in which the slide into tyranny has taken place. It is up to the patriots to rectify this situation. Hopefully, there is still time to politically change the government. If not, we must resist with the long term objective of victory.
I read your FIELD REPORT on the Second Amendment Rally. I agree with the majority of the article. However, there are a couple of corrections that need to be made. There was media coverage, but apparently your observers had left. I saw coverage on local TV in Washington, DC or a nearby Virginia station. Several friends also saw a short excerpt from the rally on our local TV. Apparently the media covered segments when G. Gordon Liddy spoke? I thought the crowd was greater than 2,000. but your estimate could be correct. I admit to being partisan and a little carried away.
I hope you are real! If the next couple of years are as bad for gun owners as 1993 and 1994 we will need each other. The socialists that control the halls of government have a plan that does not include a majority of Americans. I guess we will have to accept your word that when the time comes you will find us. Rest assured that I intend to die standing with other patriots and not as a "politically correct" stooge of the New World Order.
"Sam" Mississippi
Out observers arrived about 1100, scouted the ground, did a quick
headcount, identified the goons (remember all those clean-cut
young men circling the crowd on their mountain bicycles?) then
went to verify the evasion route established by the advanced
party. They returned about 1430 and stayed pretty much away from
the main crowd, which is probably why they missed the media. We
stand corrected.
Associate Editor
The Republican Party now controls both the House and the Senate, not only at the Federal level but in several states as well. Now we are secure and rights safeguarded, right? Think again.
The battle to return to a system that recognizes our individual rights as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is far from over. Some of the very Republicans we helped elect can be certain to turn a blind eye on their responsibilities as representatives if given the opportunity. Consider a recent past president, George Bush. He instrumental in the passage of the first "assault rifle" ban which did nothing except drive up the prices of the banned weapons. He vehemently stated "Watch my Lips: no new taxes!" He lied. And he officially ushered in the New World Order.
Bi-partisan politics are necessary as long as they befit the whole of the people, not special interests. Entitlement programs help only special interests while increasing the tax burden on the remainder. Anti-gun legislation benefits only the criminal while hindering laws abiding citizens desiring sport, recreation or defense of self and family. Deploying military forces to hell holes like Haiti in order to reinstate and support an openly communist regime serves only to shift the focus from important domestic concerns to the nebulous realm of foreign policy. Each of the above mentioned examples illustrates an area where constituents did not favor the action but both Republican and Democrat politicians acted together to further special interest groups or their own personal agendas.
As the next year progresses remain constantly vigilant. Don't listen to their words, observe their deeds. If your elected representatives stray from the path you have set for them make them aware of their error. Write a letter and be specific as to what you expect. If that fails to put them on notice and vote them out at the first opportunity.
Only when politicians are fully cognizant that they are our servants, not facilitators for special interests or self-serving power brokers, can we expect real progress in returning to the framework our forefathers intended.
"Lexington" USAJFKSWCS
I just heard about your newsletter on the Tom Valentine show (short wave). My son is in the Army in Macedonia under U.N. command in Operation ABLE SENTRY II. I have been sending him the _Free_American_ newspaper, published here in Albuquerque, and I sent him _Operation_Vampire_Killer_2000_.
He wrote back and is very confused. Those kids in Macedonia think they are on a mission from God. Their motto is; "Blessed are the Peacekeepers for they are on a mission from God." (My son) says: "I feel weird. I'm working for the U.N., the cause you and many (others) are regretting. I have no idea how bad it will be by the time I get out of this army. Where will I have been? Will I have to shoot somebody? An American? On _my_ side or _your_ side?" Would it be wise to send him a newsletter? I think so. He needs to know that he use his mind to be an independent thinker.
I haven't seen your newsletter yet, but I heard enough about it to thank you for having courage to risk your careers and lives by taking a stand.
God bless you all and your efforts. I pray He will protect you and give you wisdom. Thank you very much.
Beverly Metcalf Albuquerque, NM
P.S. I can't tell you how angry I am at what they are doing to the minds of our young men. It is inconceivable to me that my son would placed in the position of considering his own countrymen as enemies. The evilness of this New World Order is incredible.
We are sending your son a copy per your request. We suggest you
send your son a copy of the Constitution with a note reminding him
that he took an oath to defend _this_ document, and that
everything the United Nations stands for is anathema to it.
Associate Editor
It was with considerable bemusement that I read my first copy of The RESISTER. Ten years of the Marines, followed by ten years in the practice of law, have left me a little confused and totally convinced that the most dangerous criminals in the United States today are those that practice their tradecraft under the authority and protection of the United States government. Imagine my surprise to learn that at least a portion of the enemies of liberty are truly awake and aware of the dichotomy among their leaders!
At least three times in my tour as a Marine I swore on my sacred honor to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and _domestic_. Is he not an enemy of the Constitution who orders me to violate its guaranty of liberties? The Second Amendment clearly contemplates assault weapons, even though such things were unknown to the founding fathers. The preface of the Second Amendment speaks of a well-regulated militia: CITIZEN SOLDIERS; to me it is patently obvious that citizen soldiers should be armed with military style weapons. We have already passed laws that breach the constitutiion and the judiciary is allowing it in the name of law and order. Waco simply shows that this country does not need and cannot tolerate BATF, or for that matter any of the so-called specialty enforcement branches (BNDD, DEA, INS Customs Patrol, etc.).
Since this is political speech of the first order, and does not incite riot, or even insurrection except to encourage you all to vote, I have no qualms about signing my name and address. I feel even more strongly about the First Amendment that I do about the Second. I recognize that your leaders are not as enlightened as I am however, and (I) respect your decision to maintain cover. After all, a pseudonym was good enough for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when they published THE FEDERALIST PAPERS using the name "Publius."
Douglas M. Johnson, esq. Miami, FL
On November 10, 1994, while most naive conservatives were celebrating the victory of the 'quasi-socialists" over the socialists (I always call them "blue-light special" socialists; they want full socialism, just twenty years later and at half the price), I found my cause to celebrate. That is the day I received a copy of The RESISTER. Your paper was really on target.
We know our government is no longer constitutionally legitimate. It has not been since it went from being a republic to a democracy by force in 1865. I have doubts that any election can change that. A civil war created it, it will probably take the same to remedy it.
Over the past year, as I have awakened to this reality, I have heard of large numbers of others reaching the same conclusion. Unfortunately, they were all in the civilian sector. Ordinary people, like myself, who are willing to fight for their country but have little or no military training. First and foremost in mind has been the question of the U.S. military. Would they blindly follow the orders of a tyrannical government, or would they stand with the patriots and the Constitution?
The RESISTER answered that question. That is why I found it so encouraging. When the Day comes that we have to defend our unalienable rights the military forces loyal to the Constitution will be the core around which the unorganized militia can rally. The two combined "In the Holy cause of Liberty" (Patrick Henry) will, by the grace of God, be unstoppable.
Publius II Tyler, TX
Great going! We heard from a Marine on our radio program this evening (15 September). He told us of the good work you are doing to educate our military through your publication the RESISTER. We are excited to hear about your work!
I am enclosing a complimentary copy of our latest issue of _Aid_&_Abet_Police_Newsletter_ and copies of our fliers which will give you an idea of what we are trying to do in the police community. We are also to get information to military personnel, but the primary thrust of our work is the police officer...
Again, thank you for your work, and we look forward to hearing from you. God bless you!
Jean H. _for_ Jack McLamb Phoenix, AZ
We have read the copy you sent us and copies your subscribers and radio listeners have provided us. We are in agreement. We are publishing your address to make our military readers aware of your existence and your goals.
The Editor
AID & ABET Police Newsletter
PO Box 8787
Phoenix, AZ 85006
(Cost: $20.00 per annum; cash or money orders only)
-by-
Michael Bateman
Individual underground and resistance operatives, expected to cope with sophisticated law enforcement practices or security organizations are often as a singular disadvantage in their efforts to understand systematized techniques and practices of clandestine behavior. The varieties of this behavior, known collectively as "tradecraft," are a traditional province of secret intelligence and special operations; fields reluctant to shed light on operational methods and procedures. There is a dearth of reliable material in the literature of underground and resistance intelligence and unless the operative has an appropriate background, attempts to obtain useful extracts from the broader open literature will prove difficult indeed.
The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an introduction to elements of tradecraft important to evade enforcement operations or security investigations by underground and resistance operators. we have enclosed disiplines set a pattern of practitioners and this pattern is liable to prediction or analysis. We disagree with this theory when it is applied to clandestine behavior. The logic of tradecraft is the logic of fear. Fear is an individual matter.
The _Oxford_English_Dictionary_ defines tradecraft with eloquent simplicity as, "skill or art in connextion with a trade or calling." The trade or calling with which we are immediately concerned is that of the underground operative. Definition therefore becomes a practical matter of descibing components expressed in the training literature of intelligence agencies and federal paramilitary organizations. Allowing for purely stylistic variation, or variation born of contextural circumstance, the study of tradecraft is regarded as inclusive of six broad elements:
1. AGENT HANDLING. What we refer to as agent handling includes target group analysis; spotting; assessment; development; recruitment; operational managment and termination.
2. PROTECTION. Protection includes methods of establishing and maintaining cover; countersurveillance; use of safe-houses, and technical skills relating to disguise, document work and forgery.
3. COLLECTION. Collection methods are primarily technical in nature and include photography; audio surveilence; physical surveilence; suffeptitious methods of entry; flaps and seals work; drawing and sketching, and elicitation.
4. COMMUNICATION. Communication studies include the use of drops and letter boxes; clandestine meetings; secret writing; concealment devices; radios; codes and ciphers, and numerous other forms.
5.INDIVIDUAL SKILLS. Individual skills include observation and memory; evasion and escape; close combat; interviewing; elicitation, and report writing, among others.
6. SPECIALTY SKILLS. Specialty skills include methods of infiltration (ingress and egress), expertise with certain weapons and explosives, and technical specialties relating to any of the categories noted above.
Our delimitation of each category is idiosyncratic. We do, however, present an accurate portrait of the interdisciplines of tradecraft as tradecraft is best regarded by underground operatives.
A major task of the opposition intelligence specialist is developing information concerning underground activity conducted in secrecy. To the extent the activity in question is indeed secret, and presupposing secrecy's role is to actively deny the opportunity for information collection, then the underground operative must be conversant with the pure practices of counterintelligence.
A useful definition of counterintelligence for underground purposes is: intelligence activity, with its resultant product, intended to detect, counteract, and prevent opposition collection encompassing security measures designed to:
Please note that our definition of counterintelligence relates to the study of secrecy as an instrument of concealment. Concealment is the very aim of secrecy. The two are intermeshed but not identical. Concealment apart from being the aim of secrecy is a form of secrecy, while secrecy is a variable of concealment. To study secrecy one therefore begins with the study of concealment.
The study of concealment begins with categorical notice of how concealment is to be achieved. concealment is a three-fold process of manipulation involving 1) the object of concealment, 2) the observation process, inclusive of the observer, and 3) the environment. The manipulation process itself involves a philosophical ground consisting of 1) an assumption of knowledge, 2) a known category of perception, and 3) a time frame into which are injected variables of disguise, deception, and secrecy. Each variable serves an element of the process in consort with each other variable. Disguise manipulates the object, deception manipulates the observation process, and secrecy manipulates the environment.
Proceeding forth from the above we reach the modalities of concealment. These are the techniques employed to fit each variable to the corpus of knowledge and category of perception. With references to disguise, for example, we find cosmetic changes in appearance and substantive changes in form. With reference to deception we find the technique of imbedding, which redirects attention, and dispersal, which expands attention.
By way of illustration we are reminded of an old story concerning a famous smuggler who, for sake of narration, we shall call Pierre. One day Pierre appears at the frontier pushing a red bicycle on which he balances a basket filled with straw. The inspectors descend in force and for their trouble produce a single brick from the bottom of the basket. Breaking the brick, they are disappointed to find it quite genuine.
Weeks pass and the scene repeats itself. Specialists are called in to no avail and always with the same result. The inspectors know Pierre must be smuggling something but they do now know what. Curiosity changes to anguish when informants report Pierre has crossed the border for good and is living comfortably on the other side. In desperation, the Chief Inspector decides to pay the smuggler a call.
"I have, as you know, no power here," he says, "and as it seems you now reside here permanently we shall not meet again. I will ask you, no... I will beg you as one man to another to please set my mind to rest. I know you were smuggling something but I do not know what it was."
Pierre thinks for a moment and then he answers: "Bicycles, your honor, and we did it together."
"Bicycles! We together? But how?" cries the Chief.
"I painted them red," replies Pierre. "You hid them among the bricks."
In the example given, the object or aim of concealment is to prevent detection of criminal activity, id est, smuggling. Pierre's fame as a smuggler and the reaction of the inspectors is the assumed corpus of knowledge. Visual search of objects by inspectors is the category of perception. The element of disguise is red paint, the element of deception a brick, and the time frame is expanded to create the effect of dispersal. Note how all these elements work together in secrecy; so closely that an error in one can contaminate all.
To expand the shades of meaning for secrecy and concealment the technical terms "clandestine" and "covert" evolved. Clandestine refers to activity hidden but not disguised; covert to activity disguised but not hidden. This distinction is important for us to grasp. Clandestine activity is secret because it is concealed. Covert activity is concealed because it is secret. Both are secret, both exist in a continuum of concealment and at the point where one form passes into that of another the same principle of tradecraft apply.
In the traditional sense distinctions between covert and clandestine are deemed necessary to permit denials; a matter of statecraft, not tradecraft. The opposition finds these distinctions significant for other reasons. Sophisticated underground activity from inception through the planning stage is clandestine in character. Upon commission of the activity and thereafter it is covert.
Acknowledgment of the dual character of conspiracy brings us to the dual character of counterintelligence. Counterintelligence is itself clandestine activity expressed 1) defensively, or 2) offensively. The defensive aspect is often referred to as the security function. The security function involves physical and investigative measures designed to safeguard information, installations, personnel and operations. The offensive aspect refers to application of active countermeasures; counterespionage, countersabotage, or counterreconnaissance as necessity or fashion may will.
Offensively expressed counterintelligence activity is composed of two elements; the control element (sometimes called "preventive" counterintelligence), and operational element (sometimes called "defensive" counterintelligence).
Control measures are regulatory in character. Indeed, all federal, state and local government regulatory agencies are "feeder services" of the opposition's counterintelligence agency. Control measures involve the exercise of influence in five areas:
Operational measures are uniformly based on the extensive use of informant services. Operational measures are as follows.
Brief notice must be made of the so-called human factors approach to counterintelligence operations. Human factors operations involve the production of estimative intelligence intended to portray the psychological profile of a given counterintelligence target. Examples of techniques employed are indirect personality assessment; analysis of written materials by means of word count and frequency of use; indirect monitoring of certain biological functions; observance of historical behavioral trends, and (in desperation) mystical methods such as handwriting analysis and astrological charting. Please note that what we here describe is not uniquely counterintelligence methodology as assumes much of the character of the basic analytical function.
Having developed a common ground of terminology and having offered delimitation to the broad expanse of subterfuge and detection, we now propose to justify the study of tradecraft as an end in itself. Our thesis is fortunately rather simple and expressed as follows.
Opposition counterintelligence officers engaged in the application of control and operational measures will be faced with the task of observing and reporting clandestine and covert activity. As discussed, such activity bespeaks greater or lesser degrees of secrecy and concealment designed to foil observation. The very processes of secrecy and concealment therefore become a valid and in many cases the only target for observation. Understanding the character of these processes (id est, understanding tradecraft) will sensitize the counterintelligence officer to the manner in which observation is being manipulated, and in consort with other methodology permit him to pierce the veil of secrecy, uncovering that which is concealed.
We again briefly note the functions of counterintelligence, this time in terms of the corresponding means of secrecy and concealment used to cloak underground activity.
Each opposition counterintelligence function has to contend with one or more diametrically opposed protective or communicative elements. This is because hidden activity is, after all, a normal process of interaction between human beings; complicated by necessity for secrecy and concealment and the assumption of active attempts at detection.
Axiomatic in the counterintelligence profession is the idea that individuals are most vulnerable when in communication or movement. Why is this? One answer has to do with the quality of counterintelligence itself. Another has to do with the exigencies of agency. Human beings, when used as instruments for the performance of secret activity in lieu or on behalf of others are known as agents. Extensive use of agents, as we know, is a hallmark of conspiracy. Agency by its very definition includes measures of direction and control and an altogether logical and safely assumed process of dialogue. Detection of such communication is in many cases de facto evidence of underground activity. The foiled equipment buy or the foiled passage of documents are two ready examples.
The FBI is mounting a quiet but concerted effort in congress to revive their domestic intelligence operations. Under current congressional over sight mandates on domestic intelligence the FBI is limited to investigating only suspected criminal acts by individuals who belong to "subversive organizations" but they are not permitted to investigate the organization itself. Since early 1992 the FBI has been cultivating informers within the patriotic movement in anticipation of having congressional oversight restrictions reversed.
One method to reduce the risk of compromise is to require each member of your militia or organization to swear or affirm an oath worded as follows:
"I (state name) have never been, am not now, do not contemplate nor intend to be in the future, a local, state, federal or international law enforcement official, nor have I ever been, am not now, nor contemplate or intend to be in the future, an informant for any local, state, federal, or international law enforcement agency."
This must be done individually.
A simpler method is to ask: "Are you a cop?" Then: "Are you an informant?" These are yes or no questions and require a "yes" or "no" response.
We know it is ugly, but it is a necessary security procedure. If they say "no" any evidence they collect is considered entrapment.
For now, at least.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MANUALS FOR THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA | | | | In these times of federal conspiracy to abrogate the Constitution, | | patriots must possess the knowledge of HOW to resist tyranny. The | | RESISTER is preparing a series of manuals on the nuts and bolts of | | resistance. Topics include: Organization, Security, Logistics, | | Intelligence and Operations. Defend yourself against the New World | | Order with knowledge as well as arms. | | | | Available in February: | | | | ..... How to Spot Informants $10.00 | | ..... Principles of Tradecraft $30.00 | | | | Terms: Cash or BLANK money order. Send order to: | | Militia Publications, c/o The RESISTER, POB 2723, Hagerstown, MD 21741 | | | | [The Forthcoming Issue 4 will have a new PO Box. -- Chuck Prime, Sysop] | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From 6 through 8 December, 1994, XVIII Airborne Corps hosted a closed conference and research symposium for Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers at the USAJFKSWCS New Academic Facility on the missions, roles, and capabilities of the United States Army and United States Air Force in support of the suppression of domestic insurrection while under authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The predominant theme of the conference was the legality of using federal armed forces in an internal security role WITHIN THE UNITED STATES in concert with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the Rules of Engagement (ROE) such assistance would entail.
Conspicuously featured at the conference were After Action Reviews (AAR) and Lessons Learned from 3d Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group and the 7th Infantry Division during the invasion and occupation of Panama, 10th Special Forces Group's involvement in Northern Iraq, 5th Special Forces Group and 10th Mountain Division in Somalia, and Task Force Raleigh (4d SFGA) and 10th Mountain Division currently in Haiti.
The historical common denominator of the above named operations is the disarming of indigenous populations through warrantless search and seizure, outright confiscation, and buy-back programs. Joint Task Force Six AARs were also discussed.
A soldier from 7th SFGA who happened to overhear some of the JAG officer's discussions in the library asked one of the JAG officers, "Doesn't Posse Comitatus prevent that?" The Army lawyer responded; "Not any more it doesn't."
Personnel Status Reports being faxed back to controlling headquarters units in the United States from subordinate units deployed to Haiti bear the United Nations flag to the left of the American flag; in other words, in the position of honor.
Also, Special Forces personnel redeploying to the United States on emergency leave and official business have been delayed up to a week in Port au Prince because of U.N. mandated theater troop strength levels. Soldiers can only leave Haiti if they are replaced on a one-for-one basis from their home station.
The persistent shrieking of anti-gun proponents, their socialist cheerleaders in the media and statist allies in the federal government would lead you to believe that the United States is the most violent country in the industrialized West. It is, but not for the package-deal reasons they state. What is missing from the anti-gun faction's anti-crime argument for gun control is context.
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports describe the murder rate in the United States as 9.3 per 100,000 persons. England, France, Germany and Italy have murder rates of 7.4, 4.6, 4.2 and 6.0 per 100,000 persons respectively. European countries are almost exclusively white.
In CONTEXT white Americans have a murder rate of 5.1 per 100,000. This includes Hispanics whom the FBI classifies as white (and whom, as a separate category, commit murder at a rate over four times that of whites). The murder rate for blacks is 43.4 per 100,000. A simple statement of fact.
Again, in CONTEXT, the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by criminals against other criminals; yet all anti-gun laws impact principally upon law-abiding middle class citizens regardless of race. Since FBI UCR estimates that only approximately 1% of this nation's population is committing violent crime (about 2.5 million parasites), and given the fact there are about 70 million law abiding gun owners in the United States, your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is being sacrificed by special interest groups and the federal government because only about .03% of those possessing firearms think, live and act like animals.
Both the statists of HCI and their collectivist-chic allies in the media claim that 70% of the American people support some form of gun control. Our response is; "So what?" Frankly, we would not give a damn if 99% of "the people" supported gun control. What 70%, or even 99.99999% of "the people" want is irrelevant so long as a single rational man cognizant of his inalienable natural rights of life, liberty, and property exists. When the last rational man dies defending (by retaliatory force) his right to live, "the people" are more than welcome to wallow in the sewer of democracy they now drink from.
The Staff
On 1 December, 1994, a white mail, 35-40, approximately 5'9", 185 lbs, wearing tan slacks with a white shirt and black tie presented himself at the place of employment of a young gentleman who unwittingly provides a small service for this publication. This man announced that he knew about PO Box 1403, Addison, TX 75001, that there was movement on it and what it was for. He then demanded to know if The RESISTER was printed at the young gentleman's place of employment (it is not). He presented no credentials.
The employee (not our young gentleman) this man spoke to described him as "extremely rude, push and coarse" and truthfully denied any knowledge of the subject to which he referred.
Although this obnoxious man has not repeated his unwelcome visit, our observer in the area reports that intermittent surveillance has been placed on both the post office in which our box resides and the young gentleman's place of employment. The unwitting young gentleman was contacted by one of our operatives, debriefed and retired without prejudice.
A damage control assessment concludes that nothing the young gentleman did for or speculates about The RESISTER will add to the opposition's corpus of knowledge about the Special Forces Underground.
Please direct future correspondence to: PO Box 2723, Hagerstown, MD 21741.
Between 2 and 4 December, 1994, fourteen BBSs in Pensacola, Florida, were raided by the FBI and local police. Systems Operators (SYSOP) were arrested, their property ransacked and left in shambles, their families terrorized, and their computers, software and office equipment was confiscated.
One SYSOP, a paraplegic, was removed from his wheelchair by Reno's finest, placed in a chair on his front lawn, and was forced to stay there for two hours in 43 degree weather while his apartment was tossed and his property was confiscated. Another SYSOP, Donnie Lee, was held at gunpoint during the confiscation and was denied the opportunity to call his lawyer.
The raids were carried out under a press black-out, although at least one SYSOP (who was not being raided) managed to contact out-of-town press, who arrived as the raids were ending. Coverage, however, was largely suppressed.
Their crime? Posting sexually explicit BBS messages for consenting (and subscribing) adults.
Frankly, we consider pornography a trivia issue. But understand this: official suppression of what you may disagree with today (for whatever reasons you choose) is only a trial balloon for suppressing you tomorrow.
Associate Editor
Command Sergeants Major William Rambo, United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS), recently hosted a conference for USAJFKSWCS sergeants majors concerning discipline in the ranks.
A central topic of CSM Rambo's discussion at the conference was The RESISTER: "We need to put a stop to this," Rambo said; "We need to find out who is putting this out and shut them down."
According to reports the discussion about The RESISTER fizzled. Many of the sergeants major at the meeting considered Rambo's desire to see us shut down an exercise in futility, and largely a reflection of his having gone through the "Q-Course" in 1981 as an SFC (you either know what that means or you don't).
Give it up Bill: they stopped teaching what you need to know in order to shut down The RESISTER long before you got to SF. The Editor
In both May and August, 1994, 10th SFGA, working under the auspices of JTF-Six, conducted Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (BIFV) training for BATF.
The training in May focused on both driver and crewman training. Training conducted in August concentrated on BIFV weapons systems; primarily 25mm Chain Gun gunnery.
According to one of our 10th SFGA observers the BATF After Action Review of Waco (as related to him by a BATF agent) concluded that future "take-downs" of civilians opposing the federal government must include the use of BIFV equipped federal agents in order to prevent federal casualties.
The request for this training was forwarded through Operation Alliance to Joint Task Force-Six by BATF shortly following Waco. Justification by BATF pointed out that if the initial assault force at Waco had BIFVs the situation could have been resolved without (BATF) casualties.
On January 5, 1995, United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, issued a position paper and delivered a proposal to the United Nations Security Council calling for the establishment of a "strategic reserve for the Security Council's deployment," which would consist of battalions of soldiers "specially trained for peacekeeping." These units would be stationed in their home countries but remain available on permanent call to the United Nations.
Boutros Ghali insisted that the United Nations retain sole command and control over these units. He said there must not be "any attempt by troop-contributing governments to provide guidance, let alone give orders, to their contingents on operational matters."
In the closed Security Council meeting, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright said she agreed with the proposal for units commanded solely by the United Nations and reaffirmed the support of the Clinton Administration for the proposal.
Boutros Ghali stated, "This will be an expensive and complicated arrangement," but stated it was necessary to counteract the "steadily more serious" decline in offers by member nations of troops and equipment in response to his appeals.
SWF 34, 5'3", 110#, Busy consultant, Tae Kwon Do enthusiast, ISO SWM 28-40; Military, must be fit and work out, no commitments, long absences OK. (MSG) [Phone number omitted. -- Sysop Chuck Prime #1]
The rose cannot be picked without some danger. ZNSNS BBCME JQRST
The King's Mountain Model Railroad Club will hold its quarterly meeting at the Greensboro Address. Topic: The joys of timber trestle modeling.
WANTED: voluntary donations or loans of Ham radio equipment. Pre-1990 ICOM IC- R7000 and Kenwood R-5000 receivers, or equivalent: ICOM or Kenwood transceivers, voice, CW and burst capable; simplex and duplex hand-helds. Write: C&E, c/o The RESISTER, PO Box 2723, Hagerstown, MD, 21741.
Mr. Westerland of Denver, Colorado, has a long mustache.
The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification. (Two Volumes.) Bernard Bailyn, Editor. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1977. ISBN 0-940450-42-9 (Part One); ISBN 0-940450-64-X (Vol. 2). xxii + 1214 pages (Vol. 1); xxi + 1175 pages (Part Two). $35.00 each.
When the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia ended its secret proceedings on September 17, 1787, few Americans were prepared for the document that emerged. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, the framers had created a fundamentally new national plan that placed over the states a supreme government wit broad powers. They proposed to submit to conventions in each state, elected "by the People thereof," for ratification.
Immediately a fierce storm of argument broke. Federalist supporters, Anti-federalist opponents, and seekers of a middle ground strove to balance public order and personal liberty as they praised, condemned, challenged, and analyzed the new Constitution. The Debate on the Constitution captures, on a scale unmatched by any previous collection, the extraordinary energy and eloquence of our first national political campaign.
Here in chronological order are hundreds of newspaper articles, pamphlets, speeches, and private letters written or delivered from September 1787 to August 1788. Along with familiar figures like Franklin, Madison, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Washington, scores of less famous citizens are represented, all speaking clearly and passionately about government. The most famous writings of the ratification struggle--the Federalist essays of Hamilton and Madison--are placed in their original context, alongside the arguments of able Antifederalist antagonists, such as "Brutus" and the "Federal Farmer".
Part One of The Debate on the Constitution collects press polemics and private commentaries from September 1787 to January 1788. That autumn, powerful arguments were made against the new charter by Virginian George Mason and the still-unidentified "Federal Farmer," while in New York newspapers, the Federalist essays initiated a strident defense. Dozens of speeches from the state ratifying conventions show how the "draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter," in Madison's words, had "life and validity... breathed into it by the voice of the people." Included are the conventions in Pennsylvania, where James Wilson confronted the democratic skepticism of those representing the western frontier, and in Massachusetts, where John Hancock and Samuel Adams forged a compromise that saved the country from years of political convulsion.
Part two collects press polemics and private commentaries from January to August 1788, and includes all the amendments proposed by state ratifying conventions. It also prints dozens of speeches from the South Carolina, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina conventions. Included are dramatic confrontations from Virginia, where Patrick Henry pitted his legendary oratorical skills against the persuasive logic of Madison, and from New York, where Alexander Hamilton faced the brilliant Antifederalist Melancton Smith.
Citizens in Arms: The Army and Militia in American Society to the War of 1812. Lawrence Delbert Cress. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982. xiv + 238 pages. ISBN 0-8078-1508-X. $20.00.
Citizens in Arms discusses the important ideological role of the military in the early political life of the nation. It provides a sustained examination of the relationship between revolutionary doctrine and the practical considerations of military planning before and after the American Revolution.
Lawrence Cress contends that the citizen-soldier occupied a central place in the ideology of the Revolution. Changing military needs and economic conditions, however, forced Americans to modify classical republican perceptions of the citizen's responsibility to bear arms in common defense. it was not the existence of an army that worried individuals, Cress argues, but the dangers of centralized control. Americans wanted an effective army, but realized that the military could destroy freedom as well as preserve it. The charges that standing armies were a threat to liberty, leveled against both British and American regular troops between the Seven Years' War and the War of 1812, do not represent a fundamental antimilitaristic strain in American culture. Nor can policies and attitudes toward the military be understood simply as a belief that military power and civil liberty were incompatible. Analyzed within the atmosphere of ministerial conspiracy, moral corruption, and political oppression that permeated political thought before 1775, the American response to the British military presence becomes part of a broader concern about constitutional balance, local political prerogatives, and the moral quality of American society.
Hence, the character and composition of the military became a political controversy of major importance, informing the constitutional debates between 1768 and 1789. Not only was the security of the new nation in dispute, as Cress shows, but also the nature and viability of republicanism itself.
We recently had the opportunity to listen to two of Carl R. Klang's latest releases; Watch out for Martial Law, and Warning: It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong. They are a collection of inspiring, insightful and informative songs. Presented in folk-protest style they are a sobering look into our current domestic situation. This issue of The RESISTER was typeset to the accompaniment of Mr. Klang's music. (See ad [...])
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | +-------------------------------------+ | | | Warning: It's dangerous to be right | | | W A T C H | when the government is wrong. | | | +-------------------------------------+ | | | | Watch Out for Martial Law, Carl Klang's second cassette | | album is a worthy successor to his popular, hard-hitting | | O U T song collection, It's Dangerous to be Right When the | | Government is Wrong. | | | | The music of Oregon songwriter Carl Klang is inspired by this| | nation's modern-day life and death struggles for Liberty. The| | ballads and songs of Carl Klang are wonderfully entertaining.| | F O R Serious, thought provoking and spiritual, they carry an | | important message that you will want to share with others. | | | | Please send: | | | | ________ Watch Out for Martial Law $10.00 | | M A R T I A L ________ It's Dangerous to be Right... $ 8.00 | | ________ America, America $10.00 (NEW)| | | | Enclose your cash or check and mail to: | | | | L A W Carl R. Klang, PO Box 217, Colton, OR 97017 | | (503) 824-3371 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
UNCLAS MSGID/BTB.RRM/RSFU ST- AS/311700Z/DEC// AMPN/SUBJ: OPEN NET RESPONSE// REF/CRRSPND/CIV/ B15SEP95/E15DEC95// BT RMKS/01. COYOTE: ACKNOWLEDGED. REQUIRE TOE. 02. BILL O.: 940915 ACKNOWLEDGED. 941114 NEED MORE INFORMATION. 03. TINA W.: ACKNOWLEDGED. ACCEPTED. DETAILS FOLLOW. 04. R. JOSHUA: ACKNOWLEDGED. REF: P5; DISAGREE. THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. REF: P6; ENSURED. AMPLIFY. 05. MIKE L.: REF: P2; WE KNOW. DISTRIBUTE. REF:PS; WE DO NOT. 06. J.R.K.: CONTACT US. AMPLIFY. 07. PAUL P., C/O VOL: WILL BE IN TOUCH. 08. ROBERT G.: REF: P1; IF WE WERE A MAJORITY THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR AN UNDERGROUND PUBLICATION. REF: P3; WE KNOW. 09. NICK H.: 940920 DOCUMENTS IN HAND. 941207 RE: P6; AMPLIFY TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED. 10. ROBERT W.: REF: P3; YES. FORWARD E-MAIL ADDRESS. 11. THOMAS J. AND NEW MINUTEMEN: REF: P1; WE WILL NOT DUMB-DOWN. REF: P10; CONTACT US. 12. KYLE C.: OUR SPECIFIC REFERENCE WAS IN REGARD TO YOU ADVERTISING YOUR CACHE METHODOLOGY. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP SOMETHING SECRET DO NOT TELL ANYONE. YOUR PATRIOTISM WAS NOT IN QUESTION. CONTACT CIRCA 9505. 13. NATHAN T.: REF: P2; NOT ALL OF US; WE ARE WORKING ON IT. REF:P3; WE WILL BE IN TOUCH. 14. CHARLES J.: COME IN FROM THE COLD. CONTACT BY LAND ROUTE. 15. DAVID H.: REF:P6; THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT. SUPPLY REFERENCES. CONTACT BY LAND ROUTE. 16. JOSEPH P.: 940829 ACKNOWLEDGED. 17. CLIFFORD O.: 940915 ACKNOWLEDGED. CONTACT DESIRED? 18. A FRIEND, PHILADELPHIA: REF: P2 (1-2); YOU ARE CORRECT. REF: P3; YOU ARE RIGHT. NO EXCUSE. 19. FRED J.: DD-214. 20. JIM K.: REF: P2S3; THE CURE WOULD BE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE. YOU MAY BE IN A POSITION TO BE OF ASSISTANCE. WILL BE IN TOUCH. 21. RANDY Y.: CONTACT US. AMPLIFY. 22. JOHN P.: 941031 ACKNOWLEDGED. WILL CONTACT. 23. DEAF SMITH, C/O DSH: 941031 ACKNOWLEDGED. REF: P2; ACCEPTED. WILL CONTACT WITH DETAILS. 24. TULIP: ARE YOU AN AGENT PROVOCATEUR? WE WILL DO OUR OWN PLANNING. THANKS. 25. SUSAN H.: YOU ARE LIVING PROOF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO BE AN ACADEMIC AND MAKE IT THROUGH THE 60'S AND 70'S WITH ONE'S MIND INTACT. YOUR ANALYSIS OF WORKING FROM THE INSIDE (A.O., 7710, 12) WAS NOTHING LESS THAN GENIUS. LET'S DANCE. K 26. WILLIAM Z.: 940916 ACKNOWLEDGED. FOR THE TIME BEING WE ARE NOT ADVERTISING YOUR LINE OF PRODUCT. 27. HOWARD MC.: ON A COLD WINDSWEPT FIELD, 'NEATH GREYING EASTERN SKY, OBJECT DISTINCTIONS EVAPORATE LIKE THE EARLY MORNING FROST; A TRIGGER IS PRESSED, AND TRUTH SPLITS THE AIR. 28. LUKE H.: PROVIDE FULL DETAILS AND OFFICIAL REPORTS. 29. HARRY D.: IF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WERE RESISTING THEN OUR ORGANIZATION WOULD BE, IN THEORY, UNNECESSARY. 30. ROBERT K.: NO DISAGREEMENT. 31. MOM: YOU HAVE AN FBI INFORMER. CONTACT US. 32. MICHAEL B.: REF: P4; IT IS NOT POLITE TO DISCUSS TRADECRAFT. YOUR IDEA, HOWEVER, IS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE WILL BE IN TOUCH. 33. RESIDENT, ORLANDO, FL: IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO BREAK-OUT THE CODE GROUP IT IS NOT FOR YOU. 34. GEORGE S.: DD-214. 35. RICHARD K.: DD-214. 36. PREACHER: DD-214. 37. TERRY W.: WHAT YOU HEARD IS INDEED REAL.// RPLY/ S:/ 950301// POC/ MSGCEN, C/O RESISTER, PO BOX 2723, HAGERSTOWN, MD 21741// AR UNCLAS
Dear Patriot:
Your interest in The RESISTER is both heartening and disturbing. It is heartening because we in the Special Forces Underground have long known that there are patriots who recognize the federal government's slide into tyranny for what it is, even if they cannot demonstrate how this is so, or express why this is happening. It is disturbing because we did not expect so early or widespread a disclosure of our publication and, by default, our organization. That we have arrived at a point in the history of this nation where our citizens fear their government and express interest in a pro-constitution underground within the military is most disturbing of all.
Any overt discussion of the history of an underground organization by its members is an unpardonable breach of security. Doing so accomplishes little more than focusing the minds of the opposition. What follows will add little to the opposition's conceptual framework of knowledge about us but, hopefully, will serve to allay our civilian readers concerns about our "reality".
The philosophy of our organization is straightforward: strict constitutionalism, isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, individual rights, limited government, and republicanism; in short, the principles upon which this nation was founded. Our goal is to see government put back in its original constitutional prison.
We oppose: statism, liberalism, tribalism, socialism, collectivism, internationalism, democracy, altruism, pull politics, and the New World Order; in short, the philosophies of all tyrannies.
The primary staff assembled on 23 August, 1992. We went operational on 28 February, 1993. Special Forces Underground is not a title, it is a description. Enough Said.
The RESISTER, in its current form, was never intended to be an open publication. Its original intent was threefold. First, to serve as the internal organ of the underground and provide philosophical guidance for its members. Second, to stimulate general political discussion among those not in the underground thereby subverting the immoral notion that soldiers must remain apolitical. Third, as a consequence of number two, expose the contradictions between what we are ordered to do and our oath to the Constitution.
We expected some "leakage" of The RESISTER outside Special Forces. We did not expect national exposure. Nor did we anticipate the swell of patriotic support for our cause and the consequent demand for our quarterly publication. Frankly, we were overwhelmed by the volume of requests for subscriptions, information, advice and training.
The dilemma of the Special Forces Underground is that it is not organized to be a commercial enterprise and there is no mechanism in place enabling it to act as one. Nor, for security reasons can there be one. Yet, as unrepentant laissez-faire capitalists we rightfully expect par value for The RESISTER, plus reasonable profit for our effort to invest in ongoing projects. Originally, par value for The RESISTER was the pro-constitutional political education of Special Forces soldiers and the profit was the expansion of the underground. Now, given the magnitude of civilian support for our cause and requests for our publication that is no longer practical.
The RESISTER is produced voluntarily by selected members of the underground primary staff. The time used to produce The RESISTER is their own. All costs for producing The RESISTER are currently borne by staff members and by the voluntary donations of the underground, our sympathizers and our readership. By the time The RESISTER is published, targeted for distribution, then passed down the rat line, the cost to deliver a single grey copy per quarter to a civilian reader is $6.00. If our cause and The RESISTER are of value to you we ask that you contribute $20.00 and we will send you four issues beginning with the Winter 1995 issue. Due to demand exceeding our budget per issue we can no longer offer gratis distribution outside the underground.
The inherent security risks of maintaining a mailing list and the security requirements necessary to protect it and compartment access to it are time consuming. Also, the current distribution scheme for The RESISTER was neither designed nor structured to accommodate subscriptions for obvious security reasons. We can do it but it will be slow. We will send distribution down the rat line only twice per quarter. Be patient.
There is an implied responsibility that goes with receipt of a grey copy. Make as many WHITE copies as you desire and distribute them to trusted friends. Don't put them into the hands of the unsympathetic or pass them to the opposition (make "them" work for it).
Requests for information about the Special Forces Underground can not be honored for obvious security reasons. The underground is not an organization that can be joined. Assessment, vetting and selection are strictly an "old boy net" operation. We are, however, preparing a series of articles for publication in The RESISTER on the principles and mechanics of resistance and underground operations which, in principle, should answer most of the questions we are commonly asked by our civilian readership. Look for these to begin in the Winter 1995 issue (Vol. I, No. 3).
Many of you have sent books, magazines, newsletters, videos and audio tapes with your letters. Please do not feel slighted if there is no response. Everything sent to us is read, watched and listened to. If you desire an acknowledgment of receipt of traffic enclose a self addressed stamped postcard with your correspondence. Replies to correspondence will remain on a case-by- case basis. Blind Transmission Broadcast (BTB) in The RESISTER will continue to be acknowledged by tags.
The first distribution of Volume I, Number 3 will start down the rat line in early January. We in the staff thank you for your support and help.
Life, Liberty, and Property;
Editor
The RESISTER