$ 6.00
Little known to the general public is a program known as Project North Star. This program, headquartered in Buffalo, NY, is a combined United States and Canadian law enforcement and military task force. Its operational area is the entire U.S.- Canadian border region. Its mission, primarily counterdrug and anti-smuggling, is similar to the much better known JTF-Six (on the U.S. - Mexican border).
In my study of this program, I have turned up many abuses of the system by both the military and law enforcement. These abuses range from gunslinger attitudes--resulting in substantiated violations of Posse Comitatus (Title 10, US Code, sections 371 - 374)--to liability problems resulting from soldiers training police officers (even within the constraints of Army regulations).
One of the agencies identified as a source of these problems is the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), located at Fort Devens, MA (currently in the process of relocating to Fort Carson CO). The commander of 10th SFG(A), COL Lambert, has been latching on to these so-called counterdrug missions in an effort to boost the operations tempo of 10th SFG(A) amid rumors that an active duty Special Forces Group is slated for demobilization in the current Reduction in Force.
One glaring example of the abuse of the letter and intent of Posse Comitatus occurred in the summer of 1993. A training mission was conducted at Padre Island, TX, by an ODA from Company B, 2nd Bn, 10th SFG(A). The Operations Sergeant of that Detachment was one Robert Allard. The Detachment's nickname was "The Dark Brothers" (for some unknown reason). The reason given for this Detachment being selected for the mission was that they were a SOT Detachment.
SOT is the shorthand version of SOTC, which is the acronym for Special Operations Training Course. This four week course is conducted by the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, NC.
SOTC is described by U.S. Army Special Forces Command Regulation 350-1 (hereafter referred to as USASFC(A) Reg 350-1), as: "[A course] taught to Special Forces "A" Detachments and select personnel assigned to Ranger Battalions. To provide specialized techniques used by SOF (Special Operations Forces) to conduct DA (Direct Action) missions and unilateral special operations of a limited scope and duration in a MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) environment, to include personnel/equipment recovery and snatch operations. It does not (repeat; does not) include hostage rescue or linear targets. This type training does include a degree of discriminating fire, and can be conducted with weapons and equipment organic to Special Forces Groups."
The significance of the Padre Island mission is that members of "The Dark Brothers" accompanied a law enforcement entry team on a drug bust. This was a clear violation of Posse Comitatus. When the details of this violation were relayed to Fort Devens everybody involved was ordered to, "Keep your mouth shut."
From all indications, this tradition of indifference to Posse Comitatus, and conspiracy of silence, is being maintained in the person of LTC Charlie King, XO, 10th SFG(A). He has recently been overheard saying: "Anything that can be done should be done to make these missions happen." 10th SFG(A) Battalion commanders have been actively campaigning to get their Teams involved on Project North Star because: "It's such a good deal."
From 8 May to 16 May 1994, a training team from the 10th SFG(A) Sniper School conducted a sniper course for Ohio law enforcement agencies at Camp Perry OH. This training mission (Mission Number 1-A-10), was conducted under the color of Project North Star. This training mission is significant because it demonstrates how the system becomes stretched under the banner of the "counterdrug" mission. (This behavior was also noticed in BATF's lying about a drug angle in order to pull the counterdrug lever to receive support from 3rd SFG(A) at Waco.)
In the Ohio case, six out of twenty-three sniper students were in fact correction officers assigned to various prisons throughout Ohio. (One can't help but marvel at the brilliance of contraband and drug smugglers using Ohio prisons as staging areas for their illegal activities along the U.S. - Canadian border.) This illustrates a persistent ruse used by law enforcement agencies, which is acknowledged by the Department of Defense with a wink and a nod. Local and state law enforcement officials routinely lie about their participation or involvement in counterdrug operations in order to receive "free" training from the Army.
But, as in all things, you get what you pay for. During the Advanced Sniper Course for North Star, Officer in Charge, 10th SFG(A) Sniper School, CW2 Brent Delorier, insisted the students be trained in the technique of transitioning from their sniper rifle to a handgun! This concept is entirely appropriate for entry teams using M4 carbines or submachineguns during Close Quarter Combat (CQC). When an instructor can not distinguish between the appropriate tactical use of a submachinegun and a bolt action rifle this is incompetence. Based on further reports about the sniper training at Camp Perry, any one of those law enforcement 'snipers' who attempt to use what they were taught by the military should be sued.
This raises a crucial issue for the legal profession concerning the military training of police in CQC by so-called SOT Detachments. USASFC(A) Reg 350-1 is very specific on the matter of SF Detachments training U.S. law enforcement agencies. While Special Forces is permitted to conduct CQC instruction with BORTAC (the U.S. Border Patrol's private army), Annex E, paragraph 2c(2) admits: "USASFC [units] may be requested to conduct MOUT training that falls within the training outlined in Field Manual 7-8 and Field Manual 90-10. If any of the following scenarios, targets or training are included in the [Program of Instruction] it will not be taught.
(a) Training that includes discrimination fire. No situations that require friend/foe target acquisition.
(b) No linear targets may be utilized. This includes aircraft, buses, etc.
(c) No hostage rescue scenarios."
The above regulation is important because it shows how inappropriate military training is for law enforcement officers, because the military does not have to contend with Vicarious Liability.
Direct liability, for instance, is when someone approved of the misconduct. Vicarious liability is indirect, and has its roots in English common law regarding the master to servant relationship. It can be the result of negligence in appointment, retention, entrustment (such as making a rookie cop a range officer), failure to discipline, failure to supervise, failure to train, or negligent nonfeasance (failure to act).
To those engaged in the training of police officers, the principles of 42 U.S. Code, s 1983 can never be far behind. This states: "Every person (acting under the color of law), of any state, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws shall be liable to the party injured in the action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress."
Persons acting under the color of law are police officers or federal law enforcement agents. Although many volumes have been printed on court decisions concerning 42 U.S. Code, s 1983, we will discuss only one which is impacted directly by USASFC 350-1.
In Popow v. City of Margate, 476 Federal Supplement, 127 (D.N.J., 1979), the court held that firearms training received was inadequate for the circumstances under which officers had to operate. This case resulted from the shooting of a running suspect, in the dark, in a residential neighborhood. Specifically, the court mandated that training must include the following: shooting at moving targets, night shooting, and shooting in residential areas. The training must also include instruction on state law, city regulations or policies on shooting, and how they are applied in practice.
The problem arises when Special Forces personnel are precluded from "friend and foe identification" training which is commonly referred to in police training as "Shoot/No Shoot." At the same time, police agencies are mandated under Popow v. Margate to integrate that very subject into their programs under the "shooting in residential areas" ruling, and applying shooting policies in practice mandates.
A legal paradox is now created. Restricted subjects can not be integrated into the training of police or law enforcement personnel trained by Special Forces personnel under USASFC 350-1, but that training will not be defensible for the police agency under section 1983 because subjects mandated under Popow v. Margate can not be integrated into the training conducted by Special Forces personnel by regulation!
Returning to the North Star sniper training, a legal decision was issued by the 10th SFG(A) Judge Advocate General stating, in effect, that instruction would be limited to training in accordance with Army doctrine. This further aggravated a bad situation since the current Army sniper manual, Field Manual 23-10, does not address the needs of a law enforcement sniper in the area of Use of Deadly Force.
Legal briefings for North Star and JTF-Six missions are routinely treated as a nuisance to be endured. One North Star legal briefing conducted by the 10th SFG(A) Judge Advocate General's office lasted all of ten minutes. The only topic discussed was that all training would be in accordance with Posse Comitatus and the soldiers were told only; "...you cannot participate with search, seizure, arrest or detaining." Local press were to be referred to North Star Headquarters in Buffalo, NY. Members of the training team could not be any Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) other than combat arms. The greatest emphasis was placed on making sure that none of the participants had an MOS in Military Intelligence, as this had been a problem before. Finally, the subject topic was to remain firmly in focus, with other subjects not being discussed or taught.
What is important here is what the 10th SFG(A) JAG failed to do. Lesson plans were not reviewed for legal content or impact on police officers. Instead, the position was taken that lesson plans discuss military techniques and procedures for a given task. It was considered the responsibility of the receiving law enforcement agency to disseminate the information and apply it in accordance with federal, state and local law, as well as police policy. This was a clear case of the bureaucratic mind set that, "an action passed is an action completed;" an attitude that no reputable police trainer would ever consider.
No attempt was made to review the qualifications of personnel to be trained or that of the personnel doing the training. This further reinforces the appearance of Special Forces trainers doing something "high speed" while ignoring the realities of training law enforcement personnel. Finally, no mention was made of required mandatory training nor forbidden subjects based on law, limitations, security clearances, or qualifications. When Special Forces soldiers are preparing to work with foreign troops, local customs briefings take much longer than ten minutes. How much longer then, should a legal briefing be for training that could embroil a police department or an individual officer in a million dollar lawsuit?
Recently, The RESISTER received information that Project North Star was shut down. Further investigation revealed that North Star has merely been combined with JTF-Six into one organization (although it retains its distinct name). This does not bode well for the constitutional separation of police and military powers. Sources within JTF-Six confirm that the JTF-Six legal staff is constantly researching loopholes in the law and the Posse Comitatus Act. As one legal advisor admitted to one of our observers: "I wouldn't want to be the test case," for some of the so-called loopholes under consideration. This is definitely a legal and constitutional matter that bears close watching and thorough investigation.
When the Posse Comitatus Act was amended in 1981 following the declaration of the so-called War on Drugs, cooler heads in the U.S. military argued that direct involvement by the armed forces would ultimately lead to widespread corruption within the military. This belief was grounded in observations of the endemic corruption in law enforcement agencies by virtue of their close proximity to the drug trade.
These cooler heads were correct in their assessment that corruption would become widespread, but their logic was faulty. Their error was in focusing on the things involved, not the ethical and moral corruption that would befall participants as the constitutional separations of police and military powers were eroded slowly over time. Now, the cumulative effect of military involvement with law enforcement has been the militarization of, first federal, then state and local police. These militarized police, falling rapidly under the control of a militarized federal law enforcement bureaucracy, now constitute what the Framers feared the most; a standing army in times of peace used to enforce domestic laws.
The ethical corruption of the U.S. military did not result from proximity to drugs. It resulted from willful intellectual apathy by commanders toward the Constitution they were sworn to defend. JFA Davidson
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1886
The philosophy of the Special Forces Underground and The RESISTER is straightforward: Individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government, isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, and republicanism; in short, the principles upon which this nation was founded.
We oppose: statism, socialism, collectivism, racism, altruism, internationalism, tribalism, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order;" in short, the idealogies of all tyrannies.
Our philosophical framework is Ayn Rand's Objectivism (the rational morality of self-interest--which means; LIFE). Our political philosophy is grounded in the works of the Framers of the Constitution and Auberon Herbert (government as servant, not master--which means; LIBERTY). Our economic philosophy os grounded in the works of Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Henry Hazlitt (the guarantor of individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism--which means; PROPERTY).
We do not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government. We do advocate resistance to government tyranny at all levels. We do not advocate the initiation of force in doing so. We do advocate appropriate force-in-kind retaliation. We advocate active resistance against the United Nations.
Our goal is the restoration of the Constitutional Republic. Our aim is to see the federal government defanged, muzzled, shackled and cast back into its constitutional prison.
On 08 April 1995, The RESISTER conducted a telephone interview with LCDR Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994. The survey was given in support of his Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis; Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion. (Before joining the Navy, LCDR Cunningham was a Special Forces medic. After the usual exchange of bona fides, and waltzing the Name Dropping Dance, sufficient trust was established for a frank discussion.)
For the record, we are convinced of LCDR Cunningham's sincerity in his claim that the sole purpose of his thesis was to explore what effect Operations Other Than War would have on small unit cohesion. We discussed several constitutional issues with him, as well as the results of his survey. Although there are those who still vilify LCDR Cunningham, we found him to be strongly opposed to many of the non-traditional missions contained in his survey, and a staunch defender of the Constitution.
One of the first questions we asked LCDR Cunningham pertained to the timing of his questionnaire. There had been rumors of a questionnaire of similar content being administered to U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six in the fall of 1993, and the February 1994 issue of MODERN GUN magazine publicized the existence of such a questionnaire. LCDR Cunningham denied that was his questionnaire and maintained that the first, and only, time his questionnaire was given at Twenty-Nine Palms of 10 May 1994. When asked if he had made test versions, and conducted test runs of his questionnaire to refine his product, he replied that he had not. When asked if he was aware of any other person, or organization, conducting similar research, he replied that he was aware of no such questionnaire or research. (This raises the question; "Who, or what agency, was surveying special operations personnel to determine if they would participate in firearms confiscation?")
Our conversation then ranged over the construction and content of the Combat Arms Survey. LCDR Cunningham stated that the Combat Arms Survey was specifically designed to elicit responses indicative to the effect the described non-traditional missions, under either U.S or U.N. control, would have on cohesion of small units engaged in such operations. With specific regard to the infamous question #46, we agreed that unit cohesion would evaporate. Officers who gave the order would make their widows rich, and the most serious threat to the public would be the ensuing firefight between those refused to confiscate firearms, and the bullet-bait who would.
An important distinction discussed regarding the results of the Combat Arms Survey was the age of the respondents and their acceptance of foreign control of U.S. forces. The younger the respondent (in other words; the lesser the pay grade of the respondent), the more amenable he was to Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions, including U.N. operational control over U.S. forces. this was true of both officers and enlisted men.
During the interview we commented that an individual marking an opinion space in a questionnaire merely indicated the opinion of that individual, but was not indicative of whether that individual would, or would not, follow illegal or immoral orders, or perform a mission he had strong personal misgivings about, and that, for the most part, despite personal misgivings, soldiers would follow orders regardless of the legality , morality, or constitutionality of those orders. LCDR Cunningham conceded that such distinctions were outside the scope of the Combat Arms Survey, but that the margin responses to certain questions indicated that the long term result of compliance with questionable orders would eventually result in intra-unit factionalism and destroy unit cohesion.
LCDR Cunningham further related that the most frightening statistic of the Combat Arms Survey was the number of "No Opinion" responses to a number of questions, most significantly to question #46. Twelve percent of respondents answered "No Opinion" when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.
We objected that even those who had a moral aversion to following illegal orders would do so, either out of a sense of duty, or for no more substantial reason than the preservation of their military careers, and that the percentage of those who would fire on Americans, even if they disagreed with the order to do so, was probably significantly higher than 50 percent. We further objected that the personal opinions of officers who would give the orders relied less on their willingness to issue, or ensure the successful execution of, immoral orders, than their desire to achieve a one or two block on their OER. LCDR Cunningham agreed in principle that "careerism' had the logical consequence of diluting moral responsibility, but could offer no substantive evidence to the extent of impact of careerism on unit cohesion based solely on his thesis or research.
Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham's premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces--as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis--we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism. LCDR Cunningham's thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit's leadership).
Anybody who doubts this need only talk to the man.
JFA Davidson
In the wake of publicity surrounding The RESISTER after the Oklahoma City bombing, Togo West, Secretary of the Army, and GEN Sullivan, former Army Chief of Staff, sent official message traffic to all Army activities warning of the dangers of service members participating in or belonging to "extremist" organizations. Their messages were little more than reinterations of AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, Paragraph 4-12, Extremist Organizations. While never mentioning The RESISTER by name, everyone understood the underlying intent. Their motive was clearly designed to smear The RESISTER with the same sloppy rhetoric used by the media to smear patriots and constitutionalists.
The term "extremism" defines exactly nothing. It is a term used to connote an issue no one dare denote. It is a term used by devotees of the cult of moral greyness to 'define' that which they fear the most--principled adherence to truth, morality, and ethics. It is a term used by political moderates to discredit constitutionalists who believe in unalienable individual rights exercised in rational self-interest, the liberty to exercise those rights, and capitalism, which makes possible the acquisition of property--the source of all unalienable rights.
Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1947) defines the word extreme thus: "Ex-treme adj. 1. Being of the highest degree, at best, worst, greatest, etc...." Extreme, then, is a measure of degree. When the word "extreme" is used by political and media smear artists, it is intended to mean an extreme of any degree regardless of its nature. This implication is inherently evil. It means that extreme morality and immorality are equally undesirable; extreme honesty and dishonesty are equally immoral, and extreme virtue and extreme depravity are equally evil.
Defining oneself as a moderate is an admission of being a compromiser and an appeaser. Philosophically, what, then, is the implication of compromise between the truth and a lie? What is the implication of compromise between morality and immorality? What is the ethical implication of compromise between principled action and unprincipled action? The implications are advocacy of lies, immorality, and unprincipled action.
Politically, what is the implication of compromise between unalienable individual rights and collectivism? What is the implication of compromise between liberty and slavery? What is the implication of compromise between capitalism and socialism? The answer is, the same result as the compromise between food and poison--death: the death of unalienable individual rights, the death of liberty, and the death of property. The implications are the advocacy of collectivism, slavery, and socialism.
The term "extremism" is nothing other than a smear; a smear used by self-proclaimed moderates, who have no principles, to defile those who adhere to principled thought and action. It is a terror phrase intended to instill a sense of guilt and uncertainty in the irrational mob by reference to undefined and constantly fluctuating ideological package-deals.
One such package-deal is so-called "white-supremacy." Although racism is implied, the true target of this smear is western culture, (meaning specifically, of course, Anglo-Saxon culture). The deprecation of western culture by moderates notwithstanding, the simple fact they attempt to deny is that if the cumulative impact of minority contributions to western culture were suddenly eliminated from the whole, the advance of western culture would have not been delayed one single day.
Minorities who recognize this fact, those whose rational actions logically embrace the principle of reasoned individual effort as the source of success do, in fact, succeed. Note well that self-appointed minority spokesmen immediately attack those minorities who succeed as traitors to their race! Here, the principle under attack by moderates using the smear "white-supremacy," is reasoned action.
We maintain that race is irrelevant. Rational men are rational men--their skin color is trivia. Irrational men end up exactly where they deserve to be--on the trash-heap.
Another deprecating package-deal term is "isolationism." It is a term used by United Nations one-world socialists, and altruists, to connote lack of selfless concern for the rest of the world. Although no isolationist ever maintained that the rest of the world is of no concern, the smear term "isolationist" is nothing more than a straw man used to misrepresent the principle of patriotism and national self-interest.
The connotation of those who smear others as "isolationists" is that patriotism and national self-interest are evil. Their altruistic goal is to loot the wealth and capital of America and redistribute it to peasants and savages across the world. Their persistent shrieks demanding acceptance of multiculturalism denote nothing less than a demand that a mud hut be viewed as the technological equal of a Skyscraper, a Voodoo priest be given equal status to that of a neurosurgeon, and a story teller be given the same recognition as a literary genius.
We maintain that the premises of one-world socialists, altruists and multiculturalists are unspeakably evil. Productive genius is productive genius--its origin is trivia. Incompetent men deserve exactly what happens to them--failure.
The connotation of those who smear others as "cultists" is that the voluntary freedom of association by individuals is evil. This filthy smear is a direct attack on individual choice, whether that individual choice is rational or irrational.
Philosophically, this smear deliberately sets up the notion that only collective associations are acceptable. All collective associations are, by definition, coercive. They necessarily involve the use of force; either force by fraud, or force at the point of a gun.
Politically, this smear is the rationalization of unlimited democracy; the belief that might makes right. This smear is a deliberate assault on the philosophical framework of the First Amendment--uncoerced, voluntary individual choice. The uncoerced voluntary choices of individuals are their own individual responsibility. Collectivists deserve exactly what they advocate--slavery.
Pleas for "moderation" are nothing less than pleas for compromise and appeasement; in other words, the primacy of untruth, immorality, and unethical action. "Moderation" is the abrogation of rights, liberty, and property. "Compromise" is the war cry of evil.
The RESISTER has been smeared by moderates, compromisers and appeasers within the chain of command as an extremist publication. We agree with their assessment-- but not their underlying smear. We admire truth, morality, ethical action, unalienable individual rights, liberty to exercise those rights, and acquisition of the origin of rights and liberty--property; meaning, capitalism. In today's political climate our admiration of these philosophical and political values means we hold extreme views. There is no alternative.
There is only one reasonable answer to the question invariably posed by smear artists: "Surely, you don't believe in good and bad, and think in terms of black and white? The answer is: "You're damn right I do!"
Democracy and socialism are inseparable. V.I. Lenin
One principle of counterinsurgency is that censoring the message of the opposition must inevitably lead to the spread of the insurgents' message because those who may have previously paid little attention to the message offered will seek out insurgent publications to see for themselves what all the fuss is about. Thoughtful insurgents welcome such censorship because they know that some people who were previously neutral will be driven into their camp solely as a result of the opposition' s actions. The more concerted the opposition's efforts to suppress the insurgent message, the wider the message spreads covertly, and the greater the number of sympathizers, adherents, and active participants the insurgents bring over to their side. Thus, has the popularity of The RESISTER spread.
For the past 150 years, socialists and communists have been spreading their message of slavery and altruism. The popularity of their message was due, in large measure, to their appeal to the free lunch. Incompetents, irrationalists, altruists and mystics were drawn to statism and collectivism because these ideologies held out the promise that they would at last be the unnatural equal of the competent, the rational, the self-sufficient, and the logical. Statists and collectivists are at the threshold of winning the world. The forces of one-world collectivism are now on the brink of controlling the most powerful a-political army on the face of the earth. And that is why The RESISTER has been targeted for elimination.
We know well the official pronouncements of Department of the Army spokesman Mr. Denis H. Boxx, fielding media questions about The RESISTER: "I think we have to be very careful here not to undertake a witch hunt...I think there is a line that you have to be careful not to cross, that doesn't violate the very things that the U.S. military stands for, in terms of the Constitution and individual rights." (DA Public Affairs briefing, 1300 27 April 1995.) Well spoken, Mr. Boxx, however your words, and the actions of those you purport to speak for, are in direct contradiction to a known reality.
One case in point is the persecution of SFC David R. Hall by MG Garrison and CSM Rambo. SFC Hall's "crime" was to write a letter to The RESISTER after its first appearance asking if we were for real. We are reliably informed by a co-worker in SFC Hall's Directorate, that SFC Hall duly notified his immediate chain of command he was going to write the letter, showed them the letter, and sent it to us with their blessing. Three months before he was to retire, SFC Hall was exiled to Cuba by CSM Rambo, with the explicit consent of MG Garrison. Several witnesses to this event overheard CSM Rambo state this exile was intended to "set an example." (An example of what, Bill, exactly--honesty, integrity, morality, or ethics? Or qualities that apply to you, who are under investigation for influencing a centralized promotion board?)
There are other examples. Anonymous letters accusing others of "extremism." Accusations of "guilt by association." (Which means; guilt by virtue of holding the same beliefs expressed in The RESISTER, without the supporter taking any action.) Finger pointing, smears, sneers and innuendo round out the whole. Graduates of our government controlled public schools are plying the craft they learned by sense (like trained animals) under the tutelage of their collectivist 'teachers.'
One of the original intents of The RESISTER was to expose the socialists, Marxists, altruists, and irrationalists in the U.S. military for what they are and believe. The fact that our uncompromising adherence to the philosophical and political principles upon which this nation was founded make us, and our supporters, targets of persecution and censorship, and although there is nothing in writing officially banning our publication (they do not dare!), our publication exposes the true mind set of the inquisitors--the application of force by fraud.
The RESISTER is the voice of the insurgency of reason against irrationality. We are succeeding.
After watching last Sunday's 60 Minutes piece exposing your organization (30 April 1995) and having since had the opportunity to peruse a copy of the Spring 1995 edition of The Resister, I am thoroughly pissed-off--not so much at what you have to say, but the fact that you have chosen to identify yourselves with Special Forces!
I have been in Special Forces for 15 of my 20 years of active service and, along with many others, have worked hard over the past decade to put to rest the myths, misconceptions, and blatant prejudices that were attached to the so-called Green Berets in the post Viet Nam era--particularly by conventional Army types. We have been successful in burying the image of the hairy-chested, knuckle-dragging, beret-wearing, bar-busting jeep thief. Special Forces soldiers today are America's best--quiet professionals who are ready willing, and able to defend America's interests when and where ordered by our leadership. However, in the minds of the average American who saw the 60 Minutes broadcast, each and all of us in Special Forces is a potential subversive. It's the classic, "guilty by association" syndrome.
You are treading on our collective honor by connecting your views to Special Forces. I do not argue your constitutional right to express your beliefs, but you cannot impugn my reputation and that of hundreds of proud Special Forces soldiers deployed throughout the world representing the United States, by using our designation to identify your organization. As a remedy, I urge you to seriously consider changing the name of your group and to disassociate it from Special Forces.
If you persist in exploiting Special Forces to market your philosophy and to attract membership and support for your agenda, then, "Beware the anger of the legions!"
A Legionnaire Washington, D.C.
First, do we sound like, "hairy-chested, knuckle-dragging, beret-wearing, bar-busting jeep (thieves)?"
Second, it was the QUIET professionals who died in Panama ousting a malignant thug created by pragmatists in our government; who were murdered in the streets of Mogadishu by savages so altruists could cluck, "We helped;" who were dumped into a dung-heap in the middle of Africa because some tribe voted to hack another tribe to pieces; who were ordered to install a communist as 'president' in Haiti because of a political deal cut with a gang of Marxist hooligans called the Congressional Black Caucus; and who, lest you forget, have been ordered to militarize the police of this country. Subversive, sir? The only thing we seek to subvert is this nation's headlong descent into collectivist-altruism. We simply choose not to be quiet. You are ten years too late in your career to realize that we are being professional about it.
Third, we find your collectivist premises about honor and "guilt by association" repugnant. Collective honor, you will recall, demanded the Junkers remain silent while they watched the Nazis sneak into power. The notion of "guilt by association" is a hallmark of mystics and fascism. We stand in awe, however, before your omniscience of the collective of average Americans.
Regarding your objection to our name: The original intent of Special Forces was to liberate people oppressed by collectivist-altruist tyranny (communism, and its mystic sister, fascism), and to do so by representing the principles of rational individual self-interest, liberty to act in rational self-interest, and to represent--as teachers, advisors, and therefore liberators--that these former conditions are the natural consequence of capitalism. We were trained to do this by force of ideas (psychological warfare), and in SELF-DEFENSE, by resort to arms (unconventional warfare). We are practicing true allegiance to the underlying intent of the motto: "De Oppresso Liber." We will not abandon our title because appeasers--who wish solely to be liked, and who will therefore compromise their integrity to obtain that end--object.
As for the legions, remember this well--the Republic was safe ONLY so long as the legions were banned from Rome.
JFA Davidson
I am a civilian subscriber to The Resister. I am also a life member of the NRA, and have written many pro-Second Amendment letters to leftist Congressmen and Senators over the years. My question to you is this: Have I put myself in jeopardy, I mean in terms of possibly being on some sort of list kept by the feds, of being targeted by gun confiscators--should laws be passed that authorize such confiscation--due to my subscribing to The Resister, or being a vocal member of the NRA?
Also, how does any government agency such as ATF, or the IRS, get their employees to violate people's rights on a routing basis? This seems to me to be a predictable result of the dumbing down of America through the destruction of the school system.
MD El Toro, CA
Truly spoken like a man who lives in a police state. With specific reference to mail, see the side-bar under BTB.
It was only a few short weeks ago that I heard about The Resister, and just a few days ago I received a copy of the Winter 1995 issue. I read with delight (and caution) what some might call subversive material and reveled in your exercise of free speech through the printed page. Your words stuck a chord that I dared not express openly lest I jeopardize my career and service to my beloved country.
After I fully digested what I had read, I passed the publication on to close and trusted friends and discovered a network of kindred souls who still wear the uniform as a badge of national pride, rather than just for the paycheck. The bond that cements my friends and I is undying loyalty to the flag we wave, a deep sense of patriotism, and an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Also common among us, is a deep resentment toward the policy makers in our nation's capitol, who deem themselves wiser than our Founding Fathers and who seem to take great pride in subverting the greatest nation on the planet--the nation we are committed to defend. Quite a paradox, is it not?
However, it is comforting and reassuring to know what there is a contingent of men who, like so many who have gone before, still find cause to rally under the colors to defend the cause of freedom.
Jonah Somewhere in Asia
A frequent question seems to be, "Are you guys merely agents provocateur?" I'm willing to bet that the liberal Establishment would not go quite this far giving people "ideas" and possibly unleashing something uncontrollable. They regard you as their Dobermans, and a Doberman with a mind of its own is not at all what they want.
Stay free!
Cruiser Address withheld by request
Twenty-four years ago I joined the Woman's Army Corps (WAC) and took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have a hard time believing that senior officers in our armed forces are competing with each other to hop on the socialist bandwagon--but then, officers only take the oath once, don't they?
I joined the WAC during the Viet Nam war believing that I was supporting our brave men in combat. I can't express how infuriated I was when we were told that the WAC would cease to exist and I would become a "soldier" in the U.S. Army.
As "soldiers" we former WACs were given instructions for pulling guard duty. Any woman who is a true lady would not want, or ever contemplate, being thrust into a situation where she is isolated with any man who is not her husband for a 24 hour guard. I adamantly disapprove of what I have read about and seen of females in the Army. I have met many of them and can not understand why they want to pretend to be men. I say, get women out of the Army and bring back the WAC for its original purpose; clerical, administrative, and medical support for the MEN who defend our nation.
I believe what you are doing is right. I urge all in the military to read the Constitution they are sworn to defend. Please enter my subscription.
Sandie Mesa, AZ
Many of us remember you fine ladies, and we were always grateful for your service. Thank you for your support.
The Staff
I am writing to you because of a disturbing trend in the media, mostly on the various "discussion" shows, in light of the criminal action in Oklahoma. I am using a recent broadcast of Washington Week in Review as a framework for my letter.
All participants were in such a high state of agreement that no real discussion was taking place. I was most concerned about the bemused attitude toward the concerns of law abiding citizens when the various federal law enforcement agencies create paramilitary entry teams. The image of federal entry teams coming for your guns was dismissed in passing without any real discussion.
The term "paranoia" was thrown around repeatedly regarding citizen concerns about the federal government as an enemy. Although the word "enemy" carries a great deal of baggage with it, we must never forget that the institution of government wields almost unlimited power over its citizens. Ability to investigate, tax, raised armed bodies of men, conduct surveillance, and monitor communications are but examples of the arrows in the government quiver. It was with full realization of this fact that the Framers sought to place interlocking obstacles between the people who make up government and the resources resulting from government.
As a result of the immoral act in Oklahoma, politicians are crawling over one another to be perceived as the first to "do something." Some of the proposals smack of personal political agendas in a demonstration of the worse kinds of cynicism. These proposals are stark examples of ignorance ad naivete. For example, Ted Kennedy's indignation over so-called bomb recipes on the internet. (Mr. Kennedy, the information is not going to go away regardless of the medium.) And with a sarcasm I can not convey with the written word, I'm glad the learned Senator has devised a way to make computer hackers do what he says, merely by crafting a piece of legislation. I maintain he is tilting at windmills, along with all he others who would ban all forms of paramilitary training.
I would remind him, and his comrades, of another time when such activities were illegal. With population control measures I am certain the lovely Miss Reno secretly envies, the Gestapo was unable to prevent the creation, growth, and employment of the French Resistance in World War II. I urge everyone to reject the knee jerk legislation that was (conveniently) waiting in the wings following the Oklahoma bombing. Especially beware of further integration between the military and law enforcement.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself no stranger to the military, warned us against the so-called military industrial complex. I am still waiting for someone of similar stature to warn the public about the military law enforcement complex.
A Concerned Citizen Atlanta, GA
As the United States continues to split into pro Constitution and socialist camps, each of us will be compelled to choose sides. George Bush, a whim-worshipping pragmatist who was turned out of office for his Fabian socialist policies, has chosen his.
Mr. Bush resigned his life membership in the National Rifle Association. In a letter to NRA President Thomas Washington he wrote: "Your broadside against federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor, and it offends my concept of service to country." The broadside in question was a fund raising letter authorized by NRA vice-president Wayne LaPierre which accurately describes BATF agents as jack-booted thugs who, "harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens."
In further demonstrating his disconnection from reality, Bush defended Steve Willis, a BATF thug who died in the initial raid against the Branch Davidians. Blanking out the fact that Willis was, "just following orders, " Bush wrote: "I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi." Lest anyone forget, the BATF vendetta against the Branch Davidians began during his watch. Bush swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then banned the importation of firearms suitable for militia use (as defined by the Supreme Court in 1939; Miller v. U.S.).
George Bush betrayed the trust of the productive and responsible citizens who (lacking a credible alternative), voted for him. He was an embarrassment to the NRA, the Republican party, and the office of the President of the United States. As an NRA member I can honestly say: "Good-bye, and good riddance."
SP4 L.A. Keller Ft Benning, GA
It's heartening to me that patriots like you are taking an active role. I see a tremendous ground swell of support for our Constitution. My organization focuses on the Second Amendment (the "teeth" of the Constitution). We recognize, as you do, that violence would be counter-productive to the resurrection of our Constitutional Republic and to the lives of its citizens. However, we members of Jews for the Preservation of Forearms Ownership KNOW the value of firearms as a deterrent.
There are people in this country who never knew they had to take a stand for freedom. They never knew the Constitution had to be defended in the arena of politics by every generation of Americans. They are learning (I pray) that freedom is not FREE.
You are not alone. You have the active support of the law abiding, decent Americans you protect and serve.
Dr. Joanne Eisen Association of Dentists For Accuracy in Scientific Media
Recently on CNN Headline News (19 June, 1995), I began to watch a segment about a woman in the former Yugoslavia whose two toddlers were killed in a shelling. The story went on to show the yard sale she was holding to sell off her children's things. At a particularly poignant scene of the empty twin stroller standing on the lawn I turned off the TV and wrote this letter.
Although I am not callous about the death of children, I am disgusted by CNN's obvious attempt to motivate the commitment of U.S. ground troops to Bosnia. I consider it reprehensible that, since they can't move us with reason, they attempt to jerk us off with some woman's personal tragedy. At that point, I knew you brave fellow operators were right.
President Clinton can pound the podium all he wants--and surround himself with Congressional Medal of Honor winners and the widows of men he has sent to their death--he fails to realize that a warrior is not known by the company he keeps, but by the valor and fierceness of his enemies. When he sends us against the religious thugs in Bosnia he will further dishonor us.
A New Resister 10SFGA, Ft. Carson, CO
Regarding the "Bulletin" by Jimmy Dean in the Summer 1995 issue of The Drop: whenever my back is turned while Jimmy is talking, all I can picture is bib coveralls and rubber boots. Regarding LTG Yarborough's comments; I can't believe they issued from a guy who wore unauthorized headgear at a dog-and-pony-show for the President of the United States. Hang in there guys. They don't speak for the membership.
A Supporter Chapter I/XVIII, SFA
The United States Marine Corps announced recently that, following the August 1995 class, the USMC Scout-Sniper Instructor School at the USMC Weapons Training Battalion (WTB) at Quantico, Virginia, will no longer conduct the Federal Agents Training Course. The stated reason for ending the sniper training program for the myriad unconstitutional federal law enforcement agencies that attend it was given as, "fear of being held liable."
The annual two week, unannounced, Federal Agents Training Course was conducted for members of the DEA, BATF, ad nauseam, who, according to our observer, were, "trained like military snipers." Training included observation, concealment and engaging targets out to 600 yards(!). The individual primarily responsible for implementing this, and other integration of military and law enforcement training at WTB, is one CPT Boothby.
Since the national average engagement range for police 'snipers' has, for the past 20 years, been 78 yards, and since even the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) snipers are limited to engagement ranges of 200 yards, we can not help but question the relevance of such training. Questions are also raised about anyone's ability to identify a perpetrator and his actions at 600 yards before applying deadly force.
The Federal Agents Training Course was an outgrowth of USMC participation in Operation Snowcap, which was detailed in the September 1992 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, in an article entitled: "The Marine Corps' Response to the War on Drugs."
The USMC Scout-Sniper Instructor School is still responsible for training the FBI's HRT snipers. They simply ended training for other federal 'HRT' hitch-hikers. HRT snipers attend either the USMC Basic Sniper Course, or the HRT Sniper Course that, according to our observer: "...lasts anywhere from 2 1/2 to 4 weeks, depending on the weather." Only a select few HRT snipers attended the 8 week Basic Sniper Course.
But, Lon Horiuchi, now stationed at Quantico, did not attend the 8 week course--which at least would have made him fully improperly trained. Horiuchi is "scared, but unrepentant," for shooting Mrs. Weaver, said a second observer close to HRT, who added: "He doesn't think he did anything wrong." Our second observer quoted Horiuchi as claiming: "There was a change in the rules of engagement and I jumped on it."
Significantly, the FBI is polarized by Horiuchi's actions at Ruby Ridge. "Some believe he should be in jail," related our second observer, "while others want to give him a medal. HRT has closed ranks around him. He is being ostracized by non-HRT agents at Quantico."
As an aside to lawyers who may have occasion to defend clients who are victims of federal law enforcement snipers trained at the Scout Sniper Instructor School (particularly HRT snipers), we recommend challenging--based on court rulings on vicarious liability-- the legal competence of USMC sniper instructors to train law enforcement snipers.
Executive Order 12333 authorizes the Department of Justice to contract out to private entities what amounts to its dirty work, black-bag jobs, and whatnot. Part of Executive Order 12333 is said to be unclassified, and part secret. The Executive Order specifies that Department of Justice need not concern itself with how the "information or materials" on targeted organizations or individuals were procured. This covers "deals" with Southern Poverty Law Center, the ADL, Political Research Associates of Cambridge, MA (Chip Berlet), the Cult Awareness Network, and other socialist, Marxist, and communist so-called Non-Government Organizations (NGO). There is a huge domestic NGO spy network in place already, and it answers directly to Department of Justice.
Save the Children
White House briefings on Waco, which began shortly after the 28 February 1993 assault against the Branch Davidians, were attended by Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell, Vince Foster, Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger C. Altman, White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, senior White House Advisors Bruce R. Lindsey and George Stephanopoulos--and they were chaired by Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton ram-rodded Janet Reno's nomination and appointment as Attorney General. Hillary, former law partners with Hubbel and Foster (merely a coincidence), was also a former executive board member of the Children's Defense Fund.
Hillary Clinton was the acknowledged, but unofficial, chairman of the Whitehouse meetings on developments at Waco. Hillary invented the child abuse strategy that defined federal strategy in the handling of the Waco "crisis." Along with Janet Reno--alleged child rights advocate, who assumed duties as Attorney General in the middle of the Waco siege--Hillary, Hubbel and Foster refined the so-called Abused Children Strategy, including its attendant media campaign, to justify the final assault by the FBI.
"But," says our observer, "she (Hillary) was giving all the orders." According to our observer, it is also common knowledge among sources close to the Waco "crisis center" that Foster's alleged suicide, long speculated to be due to his involvement in Whitewater, was the result of his guilt over the outcome of the FBI's final solution. "(Foster's) missing papers," related our observer, "were the minutes of the Waco meetings chaired by Hillary."
Following the Oklahoma City bombing, The RESISTER received considerable, if inaccurate, attention from the main-stream media. Although The RESISTER was first mentioned in Soldier of Fortune shortly after its release, and subsequently in The Liddy Letter, the first post Oklahoma City article about The RESISTER was written by Mr. Patrick J. Sloyan, which appeared in the Friday, 28 April 1995 edition of New York Newsday. Mr. Sloyan's reasonably fair and accurate article was grossly misrepresented in the 28 April edition of the second-hander Fayetteville Observer-Times. (Personally, Mr. Chavonne, I would fire Henry Cunnigham; he had a hot story under his nose for a year, and he ignored it. Davidson).
As Mr. Sloyan's article was being put to bed on 27 April, 60 Minutes was making final arrangements for their interview with two representatives of this publication. In all fairness, 60 Minutes honored all agreements, and given the general media hysteria at the time, we have no substantial argument with their treatment of the 30 April segment. As we anticipated, however, certain federal and DOD intelligence agencies obtained copies of the video tape, which they subjected to standard computer image analysis to neutralize the backlighting, and audio analysis to obtain voice prints of the interviewees. To the credit of the 60 Minutes technicians, the former failed. It is rumored that a pink noise tape (or white noise, it is not certain which) played quietly somewhere in the background rendered the latter analysis inconclusive.
The 8 May 1995 issues of Time and Newsweek were considerably less informed--but consistent in that respect. Newsweek, in a catch-up attempt to make its article's 12 co-authors appear intelligent on the subject, lumped The RESISTER together with "...survivalist magazines..." read by, "Bored young soldiers...." (Isn't collectivism grand? Twelve "authors," no accuracy, no credit--and no responsibility.) Time magazine's me-too piece by Elizabeth Gleick was fun. Following some whining and hand-wringing about so-called white supremacists she juxtaposed The RESISTER with both the Ku Klux Klan and The Groundhog. The Groundhog is indeed entertaining, but Elizabeth's inclusion of both publications in the same sentence reveals her as an ignorant lout who has read neither. Her obvious attempt to smear The RESISTER by proximity to references to the Ku Klux Klan exposes her as a foul creature whose dedication to accuracy is tempered only by her deliberate irrationalism.
Mr. Art Pine, editorialist for the Los Angeles Times wrote a singularly inept piece about The RESISTER for the 23 May issue. Attempting to make up for lost time, Mr. Pine teamed up somebody called Don M. Snider, a retired Army colonel, and employee of a Beltway Bandit operation known as the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Pine, unaware of logical implications of one con-artist consulting with another con-artist, swallowed whole Mr. Snider's innuendo that ordinary infantrymen are trained in, "...the fundamentals of making explosives...," which anyone even remotely associated with infantrymen, or explosives, knows is a lie--except, of course, Mr. Pine.
Then, there is Frank Rich, editorialist for the New York Times. Frank's 18 May editorial ranged loosely over innumerable anti-NRA bromides until he achieved his level of incompetence, whereupon he stated that The RESISTER, "...advocates guerrilla action against the Government." (Note, for the record, that Frank refers to government as a formal noun). The only reason we even include Frank in this discussion is because he provided us with excellent ad copy. Who could pass up the opportunity to include in their ad the phrase, "...incendiary anonymous newsletter." (Frank Rich, NYT).
As our security clerk, the stately spinster Miss B. recently remarked: "They don't realize what they've done, do they?"
Frankly, the first we heard of The Groundhog was from Time magazine's slur artist Miss Gleick. Naturally, being curious, we cast our net and several hours later The Groundhog, Vol.I, No.1 (dated 1 March 1995), was laying on the tray of our facsimile machine. The Groundhog, according to our analysts, is written by an individual in a reserve Civil Affairs unit in California (85 percent confidence level). Application of the techniques of literary detection provide convincing evidence that The Groundhog is written by one individual (97 percent confidence level).
The Groundhog is fun, but its target audience is definitely not the uninitiated. It is an insider sheet that comments upon command policy within the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC). Here is an example:
Another "rocket scientist" approach to structure being attempted by USASOC is the incorporation of MILTECHs at the MACOM headquarters. OCAR has taken the position that MILTECHs are only for TPUs and has requested a legal counsel opinion. USASOC's probable response to an unfavorable ruling will be to simply cut the spaces rather than dolling them back to TPUs.
All true, of course. Miss Gleik's stunningly insightful juxtaposition of The RESISTER with The Groundhog will surely put her on the Pulitzer fast track. Now, about that swampland....
(Curious readers may obtain a copy of The Groundhog, Vol.I, No.1, by sending a #10 SASE and FRN1.00 to: Groundhog Sampler, c/o The Resister, PO Box 47095, Kansas City, MO 64188. Please allow 4 - 6 weeks for delivery).
In the fall of 1994 a number of counterintelligence personnel from the 10th SFG(A) Military Intelligence Detachment (MID), traveled across the border into Canada for the specific purpose of conducting surveillance of, and gathering information about, American citizens. As our observer recounted, this was done: "...in a way they couldn't do (it) within the United States." This "way" is, of course, in reference to Army Regulation (AR) 381-10, US Army Intelligence Activities, which explicitly prohibits this sort of activity within the United States. Our observer noted that, although most of the dirty work was done by the RCMP, the MID personnel processed the information into finished intelligence and returned to the United States with the intelligence, which was then turned over to federal law enforcement officials.
An observer who frequently advises, and trains with, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) reports that HRT routinely deploys with Barret .50 caliber "sniper" rifles. These weapons, our observer reports, "are part of HRT's roll-out package, and accompany them everywhere." These weapons were present at Waco, "dug into firing positions 300 yards from the main building covering all points in ingress and egress," said our observer.
The .50 caliber cartridge used by HRT on deployments is the Raufoss (manufactured in Norway). The Raufoss cartridge uses a High Explosive Incendiary Armor Piercing projectile. This multipurpose projectile has an armor penetrator, an incendiary component, and an explosive component consisting of RDX (cyclonite) which is the explosive component of C-4. Although the Barret .50 caliber and Raufoss ammunition has been used by law enforcement for some time, it must be remembered that this has been used by Explosives Ordinance personnel for the purpose of disrupting and destroying suspect packages from a distance.
Due to their intimate association with the U.S. Marine Corps, whose snipers use the Barret as an anti-personnel weapon, the HRT trains with, and employs the Barret .50 caliber as an anti-personnel weapon to engage targets out to 500 yards. Our observer quotes HRT snipers as justifying the use of the Barret .50 to "...penetrate body armor, and for shooting through cover." The former reason ignores the potential of standard .30 caliber sniper rifles, and the latter blatantly violates the inviolate need of a law enforcement 'sniper' (especially in the hostage rescue business) to properly identify his target before using deadly force.
For at least two years, instructors of the Special Forces Advanced Reconnaissance and Target Exploitation Course (SFARTEC) conducted by Company D, 2nd Battalion, 1st Special Warfare Training Group, located at Range 37, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been intimately involved in training the FBI Metro office in Washington D.C.. This training is conducted "off the record" and with the knowledge and consent of the USAJFKSWCS chain of command. The pretext of conducting this training under color of Operation Alliance is not even bothered with. [We are prohibited from explaining what SFARTEC is and does, by regulation, because this information is classified. But we can assure you, the FBI has no legitimate use for this training.]
During the pre-interview for the 30 April 1995 segment on The RESISTER, Mr. Steve Croft of 60 Minutes informed our representatives that an individual described by Mr. Croft as a "Special Forces Army captain" has been soliciting active duty, former reserve, and National Guard Special Forces soldiers in the New York area to join the Special Forces Underground. Mr. Croft, claiming the journalistic privilege of source confidentiality (a privilege we have come to deeply respect), refused to reveal this individual's name to our representatives, but assured them he had talked to this individual personally.
For the record, we do not, repeat, do not solicit membership or recruit. Special Forces Underground is a voluntary association, which means you have to find us, we do not go looking for you. There are a limited number of individuals in the entire special operations community who have unilateral authority to accept volunteers. The above mentioned captain is not one of them.
Hitch-hikers are a perennial danger for any organization. If you are approached by anyone claiming to represent Special Forces Underground, are solicited for membership, or invited to join, you are dealing with a hitch-hiker, an agent provocateur, or somebody attempting to penetrate the association. The S2
In PERINTRP, Vol I, No 4, we gave directions to the Deputy CG's office at USASOC Headquarters at Ft. Bragg, NC, where the only flag present in the office is the UN flag. Directions given were to take the elevator to the second floor, take a right, then a left to the end of the hall. The correct direction are: take a right "U" turn, then a left into the Command Group, and a right to the end of the hall, office on the right.
Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1947) defines terror as: "Terror noun 1. An overwhelming impulse of fear; extreme fright or dread. 2. That which or one who causes extreme fear." It then defines terrorism as: "Terrorism noun 1. The act of terrorizing. 2. A system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation." These definitions were written years before psycho-babble, socio-nonsense, femi-garble and tribal-gibberish defiled the English language. These above definitions are singular illustrations of laws and government in this nation today.
If laws are to have any meaning they must be objectively and explicitly defined, objectively and logically applied, and objectively and rationally enforced. Laws thus defined must apply to everyone equally without let, favor or interest. Laws thus delimited must be understood by everyone as meaning exactly what they say. The Constitution of the United States used to be one such law. As originally written, the Constitution defined the proper role of the federal government, explicitly limited the federal government's powers, and every rational person who read it understood exactly what the Constitution said and meant. The Constitution was written by rational men who, having suffered under the capriciousness of "government that seeks to rule by intimidation," who, understanding that government is, by definition, the monopoly of force, for that specific reason, designed a federal government severely limited in both the scope and exercise of its powers.
Since the end of the Civil War, the federal government began increasingly to assume powers not delegated to it in the Constitution. As irrationality, mysticism, unlimited enfranchisement and direct democracy increasingly subverted the letter and intent of the original Constitution, so did laws become increasingly irrational, undefined, and therefore un-judicable other than by whim in application and enforcement. (We offer the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in evidence.) The obscenity of our laws is that those who draft them believe that law must remain fluid and adapt to so-called changing circumstances. This means our laws are arbitrary in construction, undefined in interpretation, aimless in application--and most horrifying--whimsical in adjudication.
All this, of course, is intentional. Totalitarians inevitably couch their irrationalism in terms of "public safety." So-called public safety is little more that a straw man for the true fraudulent purpose of irrational, whimsical legislation. The true purpose of undefined laws randomly 'enforced' is to instill fear, dread, and uncertainty in both the purpose and application of these 'laws.' The intent of these so-called laws is to secure the sanction of those they are truly intended to victimize--the population as a whole. This sanction can only be obtained by fraud, by using the stalking horses of "crime," "the children," or "public safety." This sanction can only be maintained at the point of a government gun.
House Resolution H.R. 666, Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995, is a nauseating piece of legislative trash that holds "good faith" superior to known fact in evidentiary rulings, and was intentionally designed to subvert the letter and intent of the Fourth Amendment.
House Resolution H.R. 896, The Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act of 1995, a Bill written by the FBI (only in a totalitarian state do the police make the laws), and endorsed by totalitarians Schumer and Dicks, is an irrational bit of filth that allows the president to arbitrarily decide that any given organization is terroristic, thereby permitting the suspension of constitutional constraints on law enforcement in their investigations of said organization. Given the historical precedent of lobbies and pressure groups defining political policies, it is not unthinkable that the Marxists of the Southern Poverty Law Center (by authority of Executive Order 12333 a contract investigative arm of the Department of Justice), could influence a president to declare any constitutional organization "terrorists." H.R. 896 also specifically permits ex parte trials, in camera and ex parte submission of evidence, and in camera witnesses.
Proponents of H.R. 896 reply defensively that it apples only to foreign nationals. However, 8 USCS s 1481(a)(9) states: "...a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by--...committing any act of treason against, or attempting to force to overthrow, or bearing arms against , the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code [18 USCS s 2383], or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code [18 USCS s 2385], or violating section 2384 of said title [18 USCS s 2384] by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction." {Enacted 26 September 1961). Bear in mind, that the above specifications are determined by one man.
Consider this scenario. A communist stringer for the Southern Poverty Law Center attends a tax protest meeting. He passes his information to his FBI controller, who files his informant report. The president, under the influence of lobbyists of a Marxist front organization declares this tax protest group "terrorists." An ex parte trial is held, the in camera evidence collected by the communist, held by the FBI, is submitted as "proof" of the tax protester's guilt. The tax protester is declared an alien because his beliefs are considered an "...act of treason...." H.R. 896 is then applied in full, and everyone who ever attended one of his tax protest meetings, donated to the cause, or merely supports his beliefs, is now a "terrorist" subject to asset forfeiture, arrest, detention, and deportation. (To where, we wonder, Russia?) This is not far fetched--it is exactly what this contemptible filth written by the Department of Justice permits.
Senate Bill S. 735, "A Bill: To prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes," (emphasis added, ed.), and House Resolution H. R. 1710, "A Bill: To combat terrorism," are two further recent examples of the depths of legislative depravity to which Congress has sunk. These Bills, for all intents and purposes, give federal law enforcement agencies unlimited authority to investigate by any means at their disposal any organization arbitrarily designated to be a terror organization. These Bills are not rational legislation, they are totalitarian whims.
House Resolution H.R. 97, the Rapid Deployment Strike Force Act, is little more than a thinly disguised legitimation of the militarized federal law enforcement agencies that constitute a de facto standing army in time of peace used to enforce laws--the very danger to liberty underpinning the reason for the Second Amendment (the right of defense against foreign and domestic tyranny), and the Third Amendment (the right of freedom from non-consensual government coercion).
The specific purpose of H.R. 97 is to circumvent existing legal constraints against military enforcement of 'laws' by using militarized police to accomplish covertly what the Constitution in principle, and the Posse Comitatus Act in law, overtly prevent.
House Resolution H.R. 1544, the Domestic Insurgency Act of 1995, is an obnoxious piece of dung that purports to outlaw so-called paramilitary organizations. A paramilitary organization in this context is defined as two or more individuals who possess firearms, and train in their use "With the intention that such weapons...be used unlawfully to oppose the authority of the United States...." This means nothing less than the fact that nobody may opposes the arbitrary, whimsical application of undefined, randomly enforced laws in their own self-defense.
Taken singly, any of the above Bills are dire threats to liberty. Taken together, all the Bills discussed above constitute nothing less than the establishment of a police state. Ignoring the fact that federal law enforcement agencies are by definition unconstitutional, these Bills effectively abrogate the letter and intent of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Welcome to the People's Democracy of America.
RESISTANCE
The Staff
by "Lexington"
Before we begin our discussion of the staff and its varied roles and actions, let us begin with an analogy of a military or militia organization compared to the human body. In this analogy the commander is the brain, the staff is the nervous system, the logistics structure is the skeleton, and the line units are the muscles. Thinking in these general terms illustrates the vital role of the staff.
In any martial organization the primary assistance to the commander is provided by his staff. It provides the corner stone for the smooth, effective accomplishment of the mission. The staff assists in decision making by acquiring, analyzing, and coordinating information as well as presenting essential information to the commander with recommendations so that he will be able to make the most logical decision. The staff must be a single, cohesive unit dedicated to assisting the commander in accomplishing the mission. A staff is organized along functional lines and operates to 1) facilitate and monitor the accomplishment of command decisions, 2) provide timely and accurate information to the commander and subordinate units, 3) anticipate requirements and provide estimates of the situation, and 4) determine and recommend courses of action which will best accomplish the mission.
A staff officer of a higher command may make recommendations to a subordinate commander. This commander may accept or reject these recommendations just as he would with his own staff. Staff officers supervise the implementation and executions of orders or instructions issued or approved by their commander. A staff officer from a higher headquarters does NOT have the inherent authority to direct or order a subordinate commander to execute orders from the higher command. He may only report any deviation from those orders to his commander who then takes any action deemed appropriate. Always remember: Commanders at all levels command, a staff officer never commands regardless of his rank, grade or position.
At battalion and regiment level the commander's staff is composed of three parts. These are:
Personal Staff Group
Coordinating Staff Group (also referred to as Primary Staff)
Special Staff Group
Each has a series of specific functions. With the exception of the Personal Staff Group, which reports directly to the commander, the other two groups report to the second in command who is usually referred to as the Executive Officer (XO). The functions of these three groups, as well as that of the XO, are detailed individually below.
The Personal Staff reports directly to the commander. As a minimum, the commander will have a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) to advise him on all enlisted matters. In the absence of additional personal staff members, the CSM will assume their functions. A commander may additionally have the following personal staff members:
Aide-de-Camp. The aide-de-camp is simply a personal assistant dedicated to handling the day-to-day details of the commander's security, well being, and itinerary.
Inspector General. The Inspector General is responsible for inquiring into, and reporting on matters about the performance of the mission, state of discipline, efficiency, and economy of the unit by conducting inspections, investigations, surveys and studies as directed by the commander, regulations or law.
Staff Judge Advocate. The Staff Judge Advocate is the commander's attorney.
The XO is responsible for directing the execution of staff tasks, the coordinated effort of staff members, and the efficient and prompt response of he staff. The XO directs the efforts of both the Coordinating and Special Staff Groups. In essence, the XO is the commander of the staff.
The Coordinating Staff Group members are the commander's principal staff assistants. Each is concerned with a broad field of interest and may have one or more individuals working for them in order to focus on specific mission requirements. The Coordinating Staff is usually composed of the following functional areas and associated sections: Personnel (S1), Intelligence (S2), Operations and Training (S3), Logistics (S4), and Civil/military Affairs (S5).
The Coordinating Staff is the "nervous system" of any martial organization. Assignment to a staff position should be a meritorious recognition of the intelligence, ability and competence of those entrusted with this essential duty. A competent staff can make a bad plan succeed. An incompetent staff will ensure the failure of any plan.
The S1 is responsible for all personnel and administrative services. These include (but are not limited to): 1) Unit strength and reports accounting, 2) Replacement Operations, 3) Casualty Reporting, 4) Awards and promotions, 5) Evaluations, classifications and assignments, 6) Morale support, separations and postal services. As a unit increases in size it becomes necessary to divide these duties. The S1 section may have several individuals handling various related duties.
The S2 is the principal intelligence officer in the command and has responsibility to acquire information and data, evaluate that information and data, and present the intelligence assessment along with recommendations to the commander. This intelligence must allow the commander to recognize the threat in all areas, including high pay-off targets in both his area of influence and area of interest. Counterintelligence and intelligence training round out the S2's responsibilities. During operations, the S2 will maintain the situation map (SITMAP) displaying the disposition of enemy forces. The S2 will assist the S3 in planning deception operations. Like the S1, the S2 section may have several individuals handling the various functions or they may be divided by types of intelligence sources, i.e. Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Signal Intelligence (SIGINT), and Imagery or Image Intelligence (IMINT).
The S3 is responsible for all matters concerning operations, plans, organization and training. The very nature of these responsibilities requires intimate coordination with other staff sections. His three main areas of responsibility are: 1) Operations, both current and future, 2) Organization, and 3) Training.
The operations officer's responsibilities regarding operations include maintaining a current operation estimate of the situation, preparing and publishing the overall command SOP, and preparing, coordinating, authenticating, and publishing operations plans and orders. He is also responsible for recommending priorities for allocating critical resources to include ammunition, equipment, supplies, personnel and time. During operations he is responsible for recommending task organizations of the force, coordinating all aspects of maneuver, recommending boundaries and control measures, exercising staff supervision over all Psychological Operations (PSYOPS), and exercising staff supervision over deception and Rear Area Protection operations.
The S3's organizational responsibilities include developing and maintaining troop lists, organizing and equipping units, assigning, attaching, and detaching units, and receiving units and coordinating their training, orientation, or task organization as necessary.
The S3 is responsible for training the force. These responsibilities include: identify training requirements, ensuring training requirements meet standards expected in combat, determining allocation of training resources against requirements, organizing and conducting internal schools and allocating quotas for external schools, planning and conducting training inspections, maintaining training records, and planning the budget for training.
It is readily apparent that the S3 has the largest, most complex part of the staff function. This section normally has dedicated sub-sections to handle current and future operations, training and plans.
The S4 is responsible for: 1) Supply, 2) Maintenance, 3) Transportation, 4) Services, and 5) Miscellaneous logistics functions.
The S4's supply responsibilities include determining unit supply requirements, monitoring the requisition, acquisition, storage and distribution of supplies, equipment and the maintenance of material records, supervising the distribution of weapons, munitions and equipment according to the commander's priorities, recommending the Prescribed Load List (PLL) for equipment, and collecting and distributing excess, surplus, and salvage supplies and equipment.
His maintenance responsibilities include monitoring and analyzing equipment readiness status, determining maintenance workload requirements, and coordinating with the S3 to recommend maintenance priorities to the commander.
With respect to transportation the S4 is responsible for coordinating the transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies, preparing movement orders for administrative troop movements, and recommending procedures for controlling troop or supply movements.
The S4's service responsibilities include planning and coordinating the construction of facilities and installations EXCEPT fortifications, acquiring, allocating, administering, and disposing of real estate, real property control, food service, bath and laundry services, and graves registration.
Finally, the miscellaneous responsibilities of the S4 include identifying the requirement for additional logistics support units, recommending to the S3 the Main Supply Route (MSR), preparing logistics estimates and reports, preparing, authenticating and distributing the administrative/logistic order, determining logistic training requirements, and serving as the coordinating officer for logistic budget planning.
Again, the S4 also has his section organized along functional lines to accomplish the needed actions.
The last staff officer normally found on the coordinating staff is the S5 Responsibilities for the S5 fall into two categories, civil/military relationships and psychological operations.
The Special Staff Group is the last segment of the staff. These staff positions are created by a special need or the availability to the commander of a special asset. These positions are not formally established and are often different from unit to unit. Most of these positions are equivalent to the civilian counterparts and require little or no explanation of duties. The more common positions are: Surgeon, Chaplain, Staff Judge Advocate's Office (this is his section), Inspector General's Office (this is his section), Public Affairs Officer, Signal Officer (handles all technical communication), Engineer (construction, demolition, barriers), and Headquarters Company Commandant (command functions within the Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC).
The flexibility in this Special Staff Group lies in the commander's ability to augment it. For example, if an aviation asset is available, the commander adds a pilot as the Aviation Officer. If another unit from outside the command is assisting in operations, a Liaison Officer (LNO) from that unit may become part of this staff group.
The Chief of Staff, also referred to as the Executive Officer (XO), is responsible for the execution of staff tasks, the efficient and prompt response of the staff, and the coordinated effort of its members. The XO directs the efforts of both the coordinating and special staffs. The XO is responsible for formulating and announcing staff operating procedures, ensuring the commander and staff are informed on matters affecting the command, representing the commander when authorized, ensuring the commander's decisions are implemented, and ensuring liaison is established and maintained. Further, the XO requires all staff officers to inform him of recommendations or information they give directly to the commander or instructions they receive directly from the commander.
The most important two points to remember in this discussion of staffs are:
Staffs are formed and operate along FUNCTIONAL lines.
To ensure mission accomplishment, THE STAFF MUST WORK TOGETHER.
Militia Organizations and Effective Communications
by M.O. Warren
PAO, Special Forces Underground
The purpose of this article is to provide the organizers of voluntary organizations an introduction to some essentials of effective communications and group organization. The first question we must ask is; "Why is communications important?" The answer is because we live in a world where, as Marshall McLuhan noted, "The medium is the message." Although the irrationality of this concept cannot be disputed, as the mainstream news media increasingly loses objectivity and concentrates on agenda-based journalism, perception becomes reality.
The professional journalist is worrying about getting his byline on the lead story (or his ten-second sound bite on the evening news.) That is the yardstick by which their career success is measured--not the objective reporting of the news. To be fair, this has (in the past) been less true of the print media than the broadcast media. Today, however, journalists are not taught to separate their personal biases from objective fact. According to a recent poll of journalists, they are normally left-of-center Democrats--bearing in mind that the Democratic Party is left-of-center politically. That means that anything you say or do will be represented by the media from, at best, a socialist perspective.
That is fine if your organization represents a position that a journalist sympathizes with personally. He will report your views favorably. But what if your organization's position is one that the journalist is predisposed to be hostile to? You must attack the philosophical premises of his beliefs at their root and expose them for what they truly are.
We must stress from the outset that your message must be truthful. Falsehoods are always found out and will discredit your organization forever. Always use objective facts, gathered from original sources, as the basis of your message.
Modern communication theory recognizes three phases to communication. These are 1) transmission, 2) reception, and 3) feedback.
Transmission
Your group's communicator is the transmitter. The intended target audience is the receiver. How your intended target audience reacts to your message is the feedback to you defining the effectiveness of your message.
There are several factors that complicate communication. The first is the values and core beliefs of your intended target audience. These create filters which predispose the intended target audience to react in a given way to your message. Obviously, the more you understand about your intended target audience, their values, culture, social attitudes, etc., the better you can tailor your message in such a way as to reach the audience and get the response you desire. Madison Avenue does this with advertising, though imperfectly.
Reception
Reception is a difficult thing to ensure. You can tailor your message to persuade your intended target audience, but how can you be sure they will receive it after you put it out? One way is to get your message into outlets that your intended target audience considers credible. Even with modern advances in technology, finding suitable outlets still is not easy. A poll taken some years ago indicated that most Americans get their news from television, but that over 90 percent of those who said they got their news from television also said they never watched news programming! Where can we assume these people get their information on issues from? Entertainment programming. That means that programs whose producers use the program to stress certain political or social slants in presenting topical issues have an effect way beyond their entertainment value.
As a private group, you have to make the most effective use possible of the media available to you. Examples include meetings (rallies, demonstrations, and public meetings--to include town meetings, etc.), television (both stories by local and national media--as well as local cable access channels), radio (call-in shows, interviews, news pieces), newspapers (letters to the editor, advertisements, feature stories, etc.), facsimile machines (press releases, etc.), and electronic on-line services (both commercial and bulletin board type).
How your spokesman, your message, and your group are perceived is critical. Your spokesman should be a well groomed, well dressed, articulate, personable, and unflappable individual. He should not be a threatening, wild eyed, sputtering fanatic. People will immediately turn your group off if your spokesman isn't a normal, credible person they can identify with. This extends logically, although to a lesser degree, to the entire group. Having a credible spokesman standing in front of a bunch of threatening fanatics negates any acceptance your spokesman has gained for your group.
No one expects you will be able to groom all your members to the standard of your chosen spokesman. However, all group members who are exposed to the public (for example, your staff), must be able to talk to and deal with the media and the public, presenting your group's message in a credible way (in their own words). Analyze how the media treats people it interviews. Any individual or group appearing before the media or public in camouflage uniform deserves exactly the credibility they will receive--none.
Group spokesmen should be carefully selected. Realizing you have only a finite number of choices among your membership, you might have to train your spokesman. Many local colleges have communications courses (including public speaking). Unfortunately, some training will have to be on the job, with the attendant risk.
Feedback
By analyzing feedback you can fine-tune your message and increase its acceptance among the intended target audience. Madison Avenue calls this post-testing. You will have a harder time of it, as your group is trying to find out if your message is being accepted (rather than watching to see if sales go up, or whatever).
Some methods of post-testing include public opinion polls (some knowledge of statistics is necessary for this), interviews (these can be in the form of a question, or questions, that your members ask persons in the target audience in day-to-day activities), or other impact indicators like increased membership, favorable news coverage, etc. When you analyze these impact indicators, you will see if the intended target audience accepted your message and if it is affecting their attitudes.
Bear in mind that if your message challenges the core beliefs of the intended target audience it will be dismissed out of hand. It is better to start small and get people to consider your idea first. Once you can get people to concede you have a credible point, then you establish another point, then another, and so on. As an example, consider the anti-smoking campaigns over the past 30 years. We have gone from smokers freely smoking in public places to being forced (in many places) to smoke outside. This was not accomplished overnight! First the various anti-smoking groups got people to consider that maybe no-smoking areas were a good idea, then the next step, and the next...
Group Organizational Considerations
You are what you appear to be. No amount of communication is going to be effective if your intended audience can not identify with you. In organizing your group, which is, after all voluntary, you have to be selective in recruitment--especially any members that will have leadership or public roles. Often, groups that started for one purpose have been captured by irrationalists and deflected on to courses at odds with the group's original goal. The environmental movement provides several examples (such as the Sierra Club).
There are ways to do this. Your organization should have a clear statement of purpose (which should be public). You must make it clear that you will not tolerate anybody who does not stay within that statement of purpose. Of course, your organization may develop and change, and the membership may later decide to change that statement of purpose.
Whenever the members of your organization appear in public to represent your organization's views they are, as far as the public is concerned, your organization. If a hunter's rights group appears before the Fish and Game Commission unshaven and wearing camouflage while the animal 'rights' activists are neatly groomed and wearing suits and ties, the hunters will probably fail to make their point. You should always encourage your members to look their best in all circumstances.
You should consider that your organization is always in the public eye and that your members are your ambassadors at large.
Moral Decision Game with R. Hemmerding
Moral Decision Game is a feature side-bar for our new column The Partisan. This is a contest. The winner will receive a one-year subscription to The RESISTER (current subscribers will have their subscriptions extended for one year). The rules are simple: you are presented with a tactical, operational, or strategic dilemma. You must respond with a moral solution to the dilemma. (Bear in mind, the moral standard your solution is judged against is that of Objectivism.) To give you an idea of how all this works we have included an example, with solution, and commentary, called MDG #0. MDG #1 is the actual contest dilemma.
Moral Decision Game #0 (Example)
The line held by the People's Democratic Army (PDA) in your sector has crumbled. Your company team of the Continental Army (CA), consisting of a tank platoon (-) and a motorized rifle company (+) is in pursuit of disorganized elements of the (PDA). Your orders are to establish a bridgehead across a major (unfordable) river before PDA forces can regroup and consolidate on the other side. There is only one bridge within 200 miles that can handle your tanks. When you reach the bridge you find it blocked by a group of 'peace and civil rights' activists singing; "We Shall Overcome." They appear unarmed. What do you do?
Solution
Give the "protestors" one chance to get out of the way. If they do not disperse drive through them. Anybody who is crushed is asking for it. There is certainly no such thing as a right to enslave, and by extension, no right to block--even by "nonviolent" force--an act of liberation.
Commentary
The logical consequence of the beliefs and actions of the protestors is the enslavement of the rational in service to the irrational. The beliefs of the "protestors" necessarily involve the initiation of force by fraud, which ultimately results, by logical extension, in the use of force by government guns to enforce irrationalism. If the protestors disperse and allow seizure of the bridge, and establishment of a bridgehead on the opposite bank, the initiation of force against them would be immoral. If they do not disperse and allow your force to pass, the use of retributive force against them, to the minimum extent that will allow you to accomplish your mission, is morally justified.
Moral Decision Game #1
Instead of assaulting a city occupied by a PDA company (+) and getting your battalion (-) of the Continental Army chopped to pieces, you lay siege to it. After two months, the PDA company (+) surrenders. You discover that during the siege, the pro-PDA city government confiscated all privately owned stocks of food, that several hundred people died as a result of injuries inflicted during the confiscations, and that others have died as a result of "punishments" for "hoarding." How do you deal with those who ordered and carried out the confiscations and punishments.? Would this incident change your conduct of future operations?
SFRZZRVQW 1812359-UUUU - ZTR UUUUU R 010001Z JUL 95 SFU FM RESISTER POB 47095 KCMO 641888//SFUR-RES-SC// TO ALCORRACT INFO ALRESACT BT UNCLAS MSGID/GENADMIN/SFUR-RES-SA/182001/JUL//SUBJ/BLIND TRANSMISSION BROADCAST// REF/A/CORRESPONDENCE/950401/950630/1811// NARR/ 1. MJDCV VEAPH HQUCZ MLRTC JCVBR PFATB MDXZT UMSFD HUCQL IOBTZ CASWF NUJKY POCRS DENVC HUWAM LUWVQ BITUB VAPKI KKYFV KRETF WWWRD KBTDC MIFVG NSXRC YGRFP IJOUB VSXCR GESMV BQAES MJDCV BT NSRTM DIAKD TNAOR CNQOF VHNBY WRRCO QPSBU ZOJJC EIIHK FIRSX IGUDE AFWUS YNEKS EZXTH JBSOI IMWQH LDUNV HAECO SOPBA BYTER OMKCF DUUSO VRSLF VOWNN PREAS DIWMC PRBQE CINDF BCVOG NSRTM 2. SOAPBOX: RECEIPT ACKNOWLEGED. WORKING ON DESIRED TRANSISSION CHANNEL. CANNOT FIND SITE. IF YOU HAVE IT SEND IT. POST IN ALT.BIGFOOT, SUBJECT: SITE. OFFER ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION. YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST TO RAISE ISSUE OF OFFER TWO. IS IT BEING SERIOULY CONSIDERED. 3. CRUISER: 950627/REF P1 S2; WE ARE. REF P6 S1; WE HAVE. S3; IT WAS CONVENIENT. REF P7; WE ALSO. HEARD ABOUT YOUR BLACK BOX. WILL USE NEW FREQUENCIES. 4. JWW: GOOD TRADECRAFT. 5. MILLIE: SEND RESUME. WE DONT BELIEVE IN WINGS. 6. BLACK BEAR: HAVE NO CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF REQUESTED SUBJECT. MAIL RETURNED. NEED CORRECT ADDRESS. 7. RANGER: THANKS. BE CAREFUL. 8. ART: TAKEN CARE OF. THERE IS. BONA FIDES ACKNOWLEDGED. 9. JOSE: 950428 POST MARKED 95 0508/BONA FIDES; P1 S2 WORDS 2-4 ...DECIDED TO STOP.../ADDRESS DID NOT WORK. PLEASE CORRECT. 10 BOSTON: 950531/ACKNOWLEDGED. 11. MUSHROOM: THANKS. FEEL FREE TO SPREAD IT AROUND. USE WHAT YOU LIKE. 12 DOC: 950518/HOW ABOUT KEEPING YOUR EAR TO THE GROUND? YOU HAVE OUR ADDRESS.// POC/POB47095 KCMO 64188// RMKS/RESPONSE S: 152400Z SEP 95// BT # NNNN
by Miss B, Security Clerk, SFU
Approximately every three weeks we receive incoming mail on our end of the rat-line. As mail has been processed through security, then subsequently forwarded by messenger to the editorial staff for processing, a number of discrepancies have been noted.
Several potential subscribers have gotten carried away with the notion of anonymity, and their issues are returned as undeliverable. Returns are set aside awaiting a nasty-gram from the individuals who were just a little too clever. You must provide a correct address. We can not reasonably be held responsible for undelivered issues because the potential subscriber out-smarted himself.
We regularly send mail traps through the rat line as a quality control check, and we send control letters to the drop to identify the presence of mail covers. (This tactic is no great secret; the opposition would have to be retarded to proceed on the assumption we would not do this.) If you are concerned that our drop address is "covered" do the following: Use our mailing address as your return address. Even if they are xeroxing the exterior of the envelopes the information thus gained is nothing but the postmark on your letter. If you do this, you must include a complete and accurate return address with your enclosed correspondence.
If you want confirmation that we received your correspondence, include a Self Addressed Stamped Postcard in your correspondence. It will be dated and returned with the next outgoing. As we have noted previously, we do not maintain business offices or have secretaries who process orders. You must be patient. It generally takes 4 to 6 weeks to move mail through the rat-line and get your order processed.
The Ominous Parallels--The End of Freedom in America. Leonard Peikoff. New York: NAL Penguin, Inc., 1982. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-60247. ix + 316 pages plus references and index.. Soft cover $10.00.
Reviewed by Red Barchetta
This book asks: "What caused Nazi Germany?" Unlike lesser attempts to explain that blood bath, The Ominous Parallels answers: "The same philosophies that are prevalent in the United States of America." Dr. Peikoff argues convincingly that in both countries the intellectual, educational and political leadership share, explicitly or implicitly, the same core ideologies. These ideologies submit that reality is subjective--a malleable illusion; emotions are the proper guide to human action--especially the emotions of race and the tribe, which cannot be understood by outsiders; self-sacrifice for the sake of others should usurp a man's own desires--and the state must take any necessary action to ensure that sacrifice. These ideologies demand that "individual selfishness" does not obstruct the path of "the public interest."
From Part One, Chapter One: " 'To be a socialist,' says Goebbels, 'is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.' By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals."
The underlying theme in The Ominous Parallels is how philosophy shapes cultures, and reading this book, it is difficult to escape a feeling of hopeless dread; of being caught in racing floodwaters and swept madly toward a destruction you are helpless to prevent. Given the theme of this nation's descent into fascism, and Dr. Peikoff's uncompromising method of proving it, that is the proper effect.
The conclusion of The Ominous Parallels is not that we are helplessly destined to go to the same lengths down the same road as Germany. The conclusion is that it is time for us to choose whether or not we will; that if we fail to consciously decide, the decision will be made for us. Contrary to the bleating of irrationalists then or now, it is only a coherent philosophy of reason and individual rights which will give us the means to choose not to become our own slaughterhouse.
Dr. Peikoff shows that such a philosophy is not prevalent in the United States because, although this nation was unique in being founded on philosophic ideals (rather than arbitrary land-grabs and tribal warfare), it was ultimately lacking a coherent detailed formulation of those ideals, as well as the Aristotelian philosophers to create one. Independence from Europe was only won physically--not ideologically. "The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers," says Peikoff. The resulting bowel movement of docile Nazi sheep who obeyed their Fuhrer because they obeyed their philosophers could indeed be us, for their philosophers--their pragmatists and Kants, their Hegels and Marxes--are ours by adoption.
We do have one trump card, "...the philosophical breach between the American people and the intellectuals." In Germany, the intellectuals and the people were united in ideology, feeling at home in their country and with each other. This, says Peikoff, is not yet the case in America. Peikoff's book will help to keep it that way.
The Ominous Parallels, may be ordered from: Second Renaissance Books, 143 West Street/P.O. Box 1988, New Milford, CT 06776.
In these times of federal conspiracy to cement their abrogation of the Constitution patriots must possess the knowledge of HOW to resist tyranny. The RESISTER is offering 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.
Now Available
......How to Spot Informants $10.00
......Principles of Tradecraft $30.00
......How to Launder Money $25.00
Available in October
......Firearms and Explosives Investigation $25.00
Terms: cash or BLANK money order. Send order to:
Militia Free Press, c/o The RESISTER, POB 47095, Kansas City, MO 64188.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | AMERICA, AMERICA is the latest addition to Carl | | A Klang's uncompromising collection of patriotic W A T C H | | M protest songs. WATCH OUT FOR MARTIAL LAW, Carl | | E Klang's second cassette album, is a worthy | | R successor to his popular, hard-hitting song | | I collection, IT'S DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE | | C GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. | | A A, The music of Oregon songwriter Carl Klang is O U T | | M inspired by this nation's modern-day life and | | E death struggles for liberty. The ballads and | | R songs of Carl Klang are wonderfully entertaining | | I Serious, thought provoking and spiritual, they | | C carry an important message that you will want to | | A share with others. F O R | | | | Please send: | | ________ Watch Out for Martial Law $10.00 | | ________ It's Dangerous to be Right... $10.00 | | ________ America, America $10.00 (NEW) | | M A R T I A L| | Name ________________________________________________ | | | | Address _____________________________________________ | | | | City _______________________ State ____ Zip _________ | | L A W | | Enclose your cash or check and mail to: | | Carl Klang, PO Box 217, Colton, OR 97017 (503) 824-3371 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RESISTER "The instability of our laws | | PO Box 47095 is really an immense evil." | | Kansas City, MO 64188 Thomas Jefferson | | | | Single Issue...$6.00 | | Four Issues....$20.00 (One year) | | Back Issues....$7.00 (each, Grey) | | Volume I.......$25.00 (Bound) | | | | NAME/PSEUDONYM ______________________________________________ | | | | ADDRESS _____________________________________________________ | | | | CITY ___________________________ STATE _____ ZIP ____________ | | | | | | TERMS: Cash or Money order. (Please leave "Pay to the order of" BLANK.) | | No checks (they are insecure). Please allow 4 - 6 weeks for your | | distribution to begin. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+ | ERVUN OGNIS DQPSC MXDIR ABYFV | | JWVIT PSBRE IIXUR LZTBI SCIMR | | OXKHU WCOGQ FOMVP CREUI GDOXB | | RLSER PRAMD MIFFA KREDC PGQXO | | FRALD EAGTY TTLMY UZZIJ BRAST | | LNHVB DEOJS QUBSP XIALR ERVUN | +---------------------------------------+