The New Resister

Seeing The Fnords

2011-09-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

Normally I would post something like this on my primary blog but I'm to whine, moan, and groan about the taxicab business over there instead. Also I would not use a reference to The Illuminatus Trilogy on a basically Objectivist blog but I just got up and I feel a little bit frisky this morning.

Once upon a time ago, in a bit of a disagreement, I told the editor of the original dead tree version of The Resister that we as real intellectuals didn't actually have to dehumanize the members of The Left. My view at the time was that the partisans of The Left have chosen to dehumanize themselves, and all we actually had to do as real reporters was to observe them, and accurately report we see and hear.

In a case in point our good friend Mark Urbin posted a link to a post on Talk Straight in order to illuminate "the violence inherent in the socialist system."

(Thus also providing us with our daily Monty Python reference requirement for the day as well)

Apparently some self styled intellectual over at that cognitive cesspit commonly known as the Village Voice is openly calling for the murder and plunder of some really rich people. All in the name of the workers, which in what passes for the mind of this individual also includes folks who claim to be artists.

Here's the screen shot of the cognitive emission:

Apparently one hundred and ten million deaths in the cause of an invalid concept is simply not enough for some people.

As usual a self appointed voice of the toilers feels that wealth, the product of someone's thought and labor, belongs not to the persons who created it, but to some manifestation of the collective as a whole, and then they go into some kind of hissy fit when the people who actually created it are allowed to keep some of it. How dare a government actually act like a government!

When someone has something the self appointed guardians want to grab, they'll simply proclaim that desired object was unearned by the rightful owner, or was otherwise stolen and grab it. And they'll do it over the rightful owner's dead body if they have to.

Given sufficient time and motivation they will, if they are consistently acting in accordance to their own theory, even attack the bums who are begging at the roadside for the loose change in their pockets. After all, they didn't earn that paltry sum of money either.

Mark also points out that when one scratches a self proclaimed liberal one will find the fascist underneath.

Well, yes.

Il Duce, the original Fascist, used to be a leading socialist intellectual and even received fan mail from Lenin.

The fact of the matter is that the ideologies of Socialism, Fascism, et al, are nothing more than an attempt to give the appearance of legitimacy to old school savagery, which is basically the old stone age practice of beating up other people and taking their stuff.

Nowadays, whenever I see a "progressive" sign in on a front lawn or a bumper sticker on a car I think, "murderer."

After all, how else are they going to do it?
_

Thoughts For Today

2011-09-11T09:10:00.001-07:00

A lot of folks are putting up their thoughts for the tenth anniversary of the infamous day.

Here's a couple:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2011/09/thoughts_on_911.html

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/sept-11th/3020-hatred-of-western-civilization-why-terrorists-attacked-america.html

There really isn't much I could add to the chorus of comments and remembrances. But I will say something.

One of the nice things about having one's own blog is that one cannot be banned from posting on for speaking the truth. This has already happened twice to me elsewhere for making factual statements about Islam and those who refuse to see the truth.

My remembrances of those events are here (So Anyway) and here (Another Emergency Backup Posting).

Those who blind themselves to the truth are harming themselves. It would be nice if they were only harming themselves.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Another Emergency Backup Posting

2011-08-31T13:26:00.000-07:00

I've just posted this message over at a another forum, in the reasonable expectation that it will be removed I am reposting it here:

You know, I haven't seen this kind of shrieking and outright moral evasion since I suggested (on my own blog) that the advocates of Marxism be made to experience it from the victim's point of view, by one round in the head in the old Soviet style.

My present literary project is a science fiction novel depicting how a planet with a basically Objectivist culture would deal with the military problems facing it. In reference to one former enemy, the in-universe stand-ins for the Dorsai, I will have a character say: "Have you been to Xenophon lately? Nobody lives there. Not even mutants hunting each other for food."

Anyone, such as a Soviet Communist, a National Socialist, or an Islamist, who see me as either livestock to be enslaved, or as a diseased animal to be put down, is a mortal enemy, period. Such persons have surrendered all moral claims to the status of Humanity and all rights, including the right to live. Mr. Cline understands this.

On what grounds can someone claim to be Human when they stand up in defense of Islam, an ideology that denies my right to live as a rational human being and only permits my existence if I submit to the status of livestock?

My answer to those who denounce Ed Cline as inhuman is, no, he is not inhuman, you are.

Either you people need to pull your heads out of your terminal orifices or terminate yourselves.

The piece written by Edward Cline that I refer to may be found at Capitalism Magazine.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Update at 1700 CDT:

I've been permanently banned for bigotry and trolling.

I do acknowledge the fact that the owners of the site have the right to control the content of their site. But reality is what it is and covering one's eyes will not change that.

A Blast From The Past

2011-08-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

I was going through some old links in my bookmarks file when I found the following comment I had left on someone else's blog. The blogger in question has unfortunately gone over the other side and thus has won himself a free Lubyanka lobotomy. At some point I would expect the blogger to eventually remove this comment from his blog. Thus I repost it here.

The ideology of Eugenics was in practical effect a rejection of the evolutionary process. (And as some may argue, a rejection of the actual will of God the Creator.)

Instead of allowing human life to develop over time in accordance to a natural process (of as some would argue, the way the Creator wanted it), the Eugenicists would instead assume the role of God in the process and personally direct the development of human life themselves. The Eugenicists would determine who may or may not procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation.

In practical effect the ideology of Eugenics reduced the legal and moral status of ordinary human beings to that of livestock. It was simply another pseudoscientific attempt to justify the recreation of a master-slave society, where in this case the Eugenicists would assume the role of ranchers who would breed human beings as if they were mere cattle.

The ideology of Eugenics was just another attempted excuse for the recreation of tyranny. But as they used to teach us at the Benning School for Boys, the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

And its been a while since I've posted something here.
_

A Blast From The Past

2011-07-04T05:27:00.001-07:00

On the anniversary of the signing (the vote was held two days previously) of the Declaration of Independence I will repost something from November of 2008:

Let's talk about Socialism.

We must understand that Socialism is essentially a Master/Slave ideology. If you pardon me for quoting the First Trustifarian, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." And for the socialists, as with the antebellum slaveholders, the needs of the masters will always be much greater than the needs of the slaves.

The socialist master class, both here in the United States and abroad, basically see themselves being dispossessed of what according to their ideology is rightfully theirs. Control of their slaves and the products of slave labor. What should not be a surprise to us is that the response of the socialist master class and their supporters is in many ways similar to the actions of the antebellum slaveholder class and their supporters.

Those who reject the chains of the Left are subjected to public ridicule and slander by the self-styled intellectuals and subject to physical violence by the goon squad, with the ski-mask replacing the white sheet as the attire of choice.

If you will pardon me for the use of shocking language, to the master class of the Left, we who reject the chains of Socialism are (regardless of our actual race) no better than a bunch of "Uppity Niggers." It should be no surprise to us that they are treating us as such.

If we want to go on the ideological offensive (Or is it the Counter-Offensive?) we should simply point out the fact that the socialist economic structure is based on SLAVE LABOR.

If you will pardon me for repeating this, "from each according to his ability -- to each according to his need." Is the literal description of a slave labor economic system.

It is invariably the full socialist states such as the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, and the various People's Republics of Whatever that build and depend on full-service slave labor camps to create the goods that they need to survive.

It is the socialist parties in the otherwise Capitalist nations of the West that act as if wealth, the product of everyone's thought and labor, belong not to the individual who created it, but to some manifestation of the collective (Der Volk, the World Proletariat, etc.) as a whole, and thus act as if a robbery has occurred when the true creators of wealth are allowed to keep some of it.

(Gosh, wow, I do tend to get a bit long winded sometimes.)

The socialist is for the most part someone who declines to live the essentially rational and productive life that is proper to Man, and instead goes to great lengths (including the total disconnect from reality) to cook up excuses to grab the wealth created by others. As if the goods and services created by others were something naturally found in nature.

Instead of living as rational men, socialists choose instead to exist as less than rational animals.

Perhaps we should start treating them as such.

Let's start by voting them out of office and go on from there.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Blast From The Past

2011-06-13T08:09:00.000-07:00

I was going through some old files and found this:

Subj: Enemies of Civil Order.
From: Leslie Bates #105
To : All
Date: Sun, Nov 27, 1994 7:59:17 AM

I found the following item on the talk.politics.guns newsgroup:

> From: Terry Liberty-Parker
>> Date: 18 Nov 94 12:20:07
>
>
> The New Enemy
>
> "Parameters", the journal of the Army War College, has
>published an article by a Maj. Ralph Peters which identifies
>the next "enemy" of the "Politicized" Bill/Hillary Clinton
>military as U.S. Patriots, defined as the "Warrior Class".
>Patriots are described as "Erratic Primitives of Shifting
>Allegiances, Habitated to Violence with no stake in Civil Order".

And I posted the following response:

Civil Order as understood by adherents of the Platonic/Hegelian/Marxist/Nazi collectivist ("progressive," "caring," etc.) philosophical tradition is a social state in which we, the hominid livestock, live as directed by our self appointed masters.

The bipedal cattle who do not obey are visited by the "Guardians"/SS/ATF or other such creatures.

Civil Order in the real world as described by Aristotle and Ayn Rand is the societal condition in which we, the humans, are free to live by our own judgement of the facts of reality for our own purposes, without being put upon by thugs and tyrants.

The enemies of true civil order will always try as Orwell warned us, "...to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable," as had happened at Waco. When we accept the definitions given by our enemies, we lose. For the Clintons and their collaborators to call us "Erratic Primitives," is nothing less than a Nazi style smear.

In the real world we must define or be defined.

The Clintons and the other self styled "progressives" have tried, through their so called "health reform" and other such actions, to force us into a state of dependency and servitude. To turn the United States of America, the greatest nation on this planet into a vast slave labor camp. These are not the actions of the defenders of "civil order." These are attacks on civilization and Mankind as such.

We must see reality for what it is, things for what they are, and people for who they are. We, the defenders of American Civilization, must show our families, friends, and neighbors that we are who we are, and that our enemies are what they are.

Socialism is slavery and socialists are slavers. And as far as I am concerned, all slavers, regardless of what auditory garbage they put forth as an excuse, are enemies of Mankind fit only for extermination.

-- Leslie Bates -- -- EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN HILLARY!! --

Suggestion

2011-06-04T17:19:00.000-07:00

Read this: The Virtue of Hate
_

Quote of the Day

2011-05-18T23:56:00.000-07:00

Everything I need to know about unions, I learned during the 1983 copper miners’ strike in Arizona, when a 3-year-old girl was shot in the head while lying in bed with her teddy bear. All because her father was a strikebreaker.

-- John Skookum

I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that those who live by the sword, should as Christ says, die by the sword.

I believe that those who benefit from the exercise of coercive force should be put down by force.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

May Day

2011-05-01T18:03:00.000-07:00

Today is May First, on this day we should take some time to remember the victims of Communism.

_

Remember Waco

2011-04-19T16:15:00.000-07:00

Once again we come to an anniversary.

Eighteen years ago an agency of the Federal Government carried out an act of state terror.

In plain view of the very compliant mainstream media the so-called Hostage Rescue Team carried out a deliberate lethal force assault on the residence of the Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.

Having left the task of sorting out the innocent and helpless women and children to God, the HRT executed an assault plan that would effectively wipe the Branch Davidians off the face of the Earth. The few adults who did survive were subsequently prosecuted and imprisoned by the Federal judicial apparatus as directed by attorney general Janet Reno.

The deliberate massacre of the Branch Davidians served as a demonstration of what the Marxist leadership of the Democratic Party was willing to do to those who opposed it.

To this day the "intellectual" partisans of the Democratic Party continue to deny responsibility for the deliberate act of mass murder perpetrated by their own leadership. Much as the fellow travellers of the Communist movement denied the crimes of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

One such person writing in a forum on the Huffington Post, an intellectual cesspit akin to the propaganda agencies of the former Soviet State, having read a previous posting on this subject on this site, declared the author of the post to be "doofus" and that the Branch Davidians were solely responsible for their own destruction.

The fact that a Federal agency initiated the sequence of events. And the fact that the HRT declined to carry out the type of rescue operation, for which they were allegedly established and trained to carry out, in favor of a total lethal force action, were simply blanked out of the alleged mind of the commenter.

The Democratic Party continues to treat this atrocity as a valid act of government and thus continue to act as accessories after the fact to the crime.

I will have more to say concerning the epistemological cause of this pattern of behavior at a future date.

No effort has been made by the subsequent Republican administration to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. This constitutes valid grounds for being properly ashamed of being a supporter of the Republican Party.

The following article was electronically published on the LIBERNET Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I morally condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

_

Two Blasts From The Past

2011-04-12T12:57:00.000-07:00

First, President John Quincy Adams on Islam:

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

And something I wrote more recently on the subject of pacifism:

If one were dealing with an honest pacifist then their fundamental error is that he or she treats the state of peace as an absolute value without regard to conditions or consequences. Values are in fact conditional.

Peace is only an affirmative value to those who live in the condition of liberty, that is being rightfully in charge of one's self and able to set the goals for one's own life. Peace cannot be a value to the subjects of a totalitarian socialist state. To the victim of such a state -- the ordinary worker who is bullied by a commissar, the inmate of a slave labor camp, or the occupant of a darkened cell awaiting murder at the hands of the local chekists -- war, either an internal uprising against the socialist masters, or an invasion by an army of liberation, is in fact the positive value.

But if there is anything that I have noticed over the years, it is that most self-proclaimed pacifists are in fact also advocates of totalitarian socialism who have worked within our political system to prevent the overthrow of their Marxist brethren in other nations, and therefore are also accessories to the crimes of these Marxist states.

Isn't it about time that the self-styled peace movement be exposed and dealt with as such?

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Rant for the Day (Recycled)

2011-04-11T11:06:00.000-07:00

The original version of this was posted on my original blog in 2005:

We must remember that Socialism is essentially a Master/Slave ideology. If you pardon me for quoting the First Trustifarian: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. And for the socialists, as with the antebellum slaveholders, the needs of the masters will always be much greater than the needs of the slaves.

But now the socialist master class, both here in the United States and abroad, now see themselves being dispossessed of what according to their ideology is rightfully theirs. Control of their slaves and the products of slave labor. What should not be a surprise to us is that the response of the socialist master class and their supporters is in many ways similar to the actions of the antebellum slaveholder class and their supporters.

Those who reject the chains of the Left are subjected to public ridicule and slander by the self-styled intellectuals and subject to physical violence by the goon squad, with the ski-mask replacing the white sheet as the attire of choice.

If you will pardon me for the use of shocking language, to the master class of the Left, we who reject the chains of Socialism are (regardless of our actual race) no better than a bunch of "Uppity Niggers." It should be no surprise to us that they are treating us as such.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

The unionized public employees in this year have apparently adopted the attitudes and methodology of the old slave holding class.

This pack of predators, like all others will just have to be thinned out.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

AN OPEN LETTER TO GENERAL PETRAEUS

2011-04-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND RE-POST

From www.BurnTheKoranForFreedom.com

OPEN LETTER TO GEN. PETRAEUS

“Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”
– Gen. David Petraeus

General, I ask you this: what in hell is your “mission” if We the People jeopardize it by exercising our First Amendment rights in our own homeland? Is your “mission” to defend our rights against foreign enemies, or to defend foreign enemies against our rights?

You made your choice, and you justified it by asserting that you and those under your command have been taken hostage by our terrorist enemy. The ransom demand you obediently delivered to us is that we must submit to your captor’s restrictions against our rightful freedom on our own property, or they’ll kill you.

I remind you and your captors that we do not negotiate with terrorists.

And I remind you that you are the most respected general in the present day, commanding in the most powerful military in all of history, during the most justifiable war in the last seventy years. So please either remember your priorities and slaughter your captors, or resign in disgrace so that we may replace you with a warrior. And if you resign, please do so along with President Obama, Gen. Caldwell, Pentagon Spokesman Lapan, Sec. of State Clinton, Atty. Gen. Holder, NATO Sec. Rasmussen and all others in all branches of government and in all alliances who echoed your request, no matter whether they did so mindlessly or with surrender aforethought.

Our own military leaders asking us to forsake our freedom is un-American. Asking us to do it to on behalf of the comfort of our enemy in a time of war is treasonous. And asking us to do it in the name of the alleged cowardice of those under your command is a shocking and unthinkable act of surrender which I still don’t have all the words for.

But I do have the action for it. We the People will force the issue right here and now. If peacefully exercising our unalienable rights on our own property here in our own homeland endangers you, then we will endanger you.

We will burn the Koran for freedom and post the videos for all the world to see. We will be overt or covert, we will be named or anonymous, we will be sparse or numerous – but we will be unstoppable, and eventually we will be effective.

We will do this because you have no goddamned right to sell out our freedom for the sake of our enemy’s sensitivity. We will do it because you more than have the power to defend yourselves against that enemy if only you would use it. We will do it because facing danger to defend our rightful freedom is why we pay you, train you, equip you, promote you, appoint you, deploy you, and – formerly! – revere you.

You work for us, General, not for our enemy. And we will regain control over you and over this war from the command center of our own backyards. We will destroy any of your alliances of appeasement which would restrict our constitutional rights. We will force the military to defend yourselves and us as you were deployed to do, or to come home in defeat and lock the door behind you.

Whether accidentally through stupidity or deliberately through manipulation, it’s been made clear that We the People have the power to force this issue with nothing more than a book, a match and a video recording.

And so we will.

A right not exercised under duress is a right that has been surrendered. And should you and those above you continue to choose surrender as the course of the military, that will be your own course, your own bargain with the devil, and your own shame – not that of We the People. If free individuals are to remain free, they must defy all oppression at all times, without special exceptions. America was founded on defiance! And some of us remain a proudly defiant people to this day. So if your “mission” is to build understanding in the world, then make sure they understand that about us.

When we can burn our own copies of the Koran on our own soil without credible threats from jihadists or appeasement of those threats from our military and our government, then we will gladly stop burning them.

We may live in occupied territory psychologically, but we do not yet live in occupied territory legally or physically. We will do as we please, and we will continue to expect all branches of our government to secure our right to do it.

I remind you that securing our rights is the only legitimate reason that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And not everybody among the governed consents to surrendering our rights to terrorists. We will ensure that you either join us in resisting them, or get out of the way.

Let’s roll.

Chuck
www.BurnTheKoranForFreedom.com

Huh?

2011-02-22T04:35:00.001-08:00

Alex Johnson of The Epoch Times reports:

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the USSR, said recently that Moammar Ghadafi could be run out of Libya due to the violent force used to combat the protests.

"Gadhafi reacted so ruthlessly that he might end up being forced out (of his country),” Gorbachev told CNN. “I don't want to make predictions or anything, but he's shooting at people; he is using the military and weapons against defenseless people."

Um, isn't that pretty much the definition of how the Soviet State operated?

You simply can not have Socialism, or "social justice", or any other political order that operates on looting without the exercise of deadly force against the productive population.

The only alternative to a social and political order based on the principle of consent is coercion by physical force. (The emission of fraudulent ideologies only serves to cloud the issue.)

As the present looting spree by the Tax Eaters continues we will eventually see mobs of overburdened taxpayers taking to the streets with their fists in the air and chanting: "HELL NO! WE DON'T OWE!"*

To the various gangs of Tax Eaters, who depend on tax revenue for their sustenance, this is nothing less than a death sentence. And their patrons in executive office on the state and federal level will respond to a tax strike with open and deadly force.

They simply have no other choice.

* Yes, I know what's going on in Wisconsin. I'm simply predicting that things will get a lot worse.

A Question For Today

2011-02-21T12:30:00.000-08:00

I have a question for Republican office holders and members of the Tea Party:

If public employee unions, and teacher's unions in particular are corrupt, then how can we continue to allow them anywhere near our children?

I think the answer is obvious.

_

Quote of the Day

2011-02-13T00:01:00.000-08:00

Mark Urbin posted this on his No Moss Here blog:

Much of the left’s hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left’s new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It’s all they have left.

-- Ann Coulter

Anyone who feels that they are automatically right is automatically wrong.

The persistent habit by the members of The Left of refusing to check their basic beliefs (what Ayn Rand used to call a Premise Check) as well as their immediate facts is leading them away from the path of reality (and thus Life) and onto the path of insanity and destruction. It should come as no surprise that horrendous megaperson body counts were run up by collectivist states in Twentieth Century. Each of those states were founded on a falsehood and led by a leader who was held to be infallible.

Anyone who feels that they are infallible is already in the failure mode.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Progressives In Action

2011-01-31T00:34:00.000-08:00

In the early 1930s, the Communist Party of the United States censured a comrade whom they had assigned to infiltrate the National Guard, because he refused to distribute materials demanding the abolition of corporal punishment of the troops on the grounds that it had already been abolished, nearly a century earlier.

-- Al Nofi's CIC, Strategy Page

2011-01-15T23:56:00.000-08:00

Varmint at Attack Cartoons has this to say about campaign of defamation against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party:

Of course Jane Fonda just had to join the chorus of lefties condemning Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the Tucson Massacre... by posting on Twitter.

Thus demonstrating that she has become something of a twit.

The old school Communist form of lying only worked, if it ever did*, during the age of the industrial mass media. Comrade Fonda and the other old school Reds are simply refusing to face the fact that the new cybernetic personal media allows us to get to the truth far more quickly than the old propaganda machine can react to an event. The OODA loop** of people using the cybernetic personal media is far shorter in time than the reaction time of the industrial age propaganda machine controlled by the present day Reds. And even though the Reds, like Comrade Fonda, are trying to use the personal media to disseminate their message, they no longer hold a monopoly on the means of dissemination.

The Reds and other like minded idiots are going to be washed away in the flood of truth.

* "There is no truth in Pravda."

** Orient-Observe-Decide-Act. The OODA loop, also known as the Boyd Cycle, was identified by a Colonel Boyd of the United States Air Force when he was doing research on the dogfights that happened during the Korean War. Those who are functioning within a shorter Boyd Cycle will have an advantage over their opponent in combat.
_

A Comment On The News

2011-01-10T02:47:00.000-08:00

I've pretty much invoked the "Cry Wolf" rule as far as the emissions of the Leftist Commentariat is concerned.

And I expect the Senior Senator from New York to call for more violence against more innocent people in three... two... one...

"Mister Schmumer... what's it like to not have a Human soul?"

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

2010-11-22T04:41:00.000-08:00

This one comes from Varmint at ATTACK CARTOONS:

Well, If I recall correctly, Mr. Orwell never did say anything about what the comrades in the Inner Party did for fun. And unlike Sergeant Berry, I am not going to reread Orwell's magnum opus ever again if I can help it.

After I posted my initial comment on this image at Attack Cartoons another thought had popped into my head:

CREEPY UNCLE IS TOUCHING YOU

But that was a rather obvious one, wasn't it?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality.
_

Another Blast From The Past

2010-11-08T04:32:00.000-08:00

I was going through some old posts on my original blog when I found this:

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Giving Real Meaning to Veterans Day

By Edwin A. Locke

There is no more precious possession than one's own life. But without political freedom, human life is empty. Man cannot exist in any meaningful sense as a serf. The New Hampshire motto says it perfectly: "Live Free or Die."

Because human life is so precious, war should never be undertaken unless our rights are threatened. It is often said that our soldiers must sacrifice themselves for our country. This is precisely what we must not ask them to do. A sacrifice entails the surrender of a greater value for a lesser one. But if a man loses his life on the premise, "I would rather die than live in slavery," it is a tragic loss—but it is not a sacrifice. Such a man is acting in his own interests, to protect his most precious values.

Unfortunately the link to the original article is dead.
_

Another Blast From The Past

2010-11-08T03:22:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend I forgot to mention that it was the anniversary of Comrade Lenin's coup d'etat against the elected government of Russia. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if some folks in the present day left are getting warm and fuzzy feelings at the thought of doing something simular to us.

My own thought for the day is what would stop the self-styled "Progressives" in Congress from doing something really reactionary like passing a law in the lame-duck session that allowed the present occupant of the White House to rule by decree?

And just to remind everyone what we're up against I'm reposting this piece from my original blog:

What Does The Left Want?

In a word, everything.

As a consequence there are things that the Left will not tolerate.

The Left will not tolerate the independent exercise of force, especially when it is an act of self defense. The left seeks to disarm their subjects and will maliciously persecute those who dare raise a hand in their own defense.

Nor will the Left tolerate the existence and operation of the independent rational mind, for any factual refutation of any of the Left's beliefs will inevitably puncture their collective delusion of infallibility. Anyone who thinks for himself, let alone actually speaks up against the Left is publicly maligned and, where it is possible, physically assaulted.

In Rouge Kampuchea under Pol Pot the fear and hatred of independent thought was so strong that anyone who was suspected of being able to read was immediately taken out and shot. And as the Khmer Rouge ran up their bodycount leftist rags in America like the New York Times sat by and cheered them on.

Oh, and Thomas Sowell has his own ideas on the subject.

Now boys and girls, what are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Message for Today

2010-10-30T01:03:00.000-07:00

A message from Chuck Prime:

From ResistNet:

The Republican Party has set up a Hotline for election day, 1-888-775-8117, which will be staffed by attorneys, to handle polling issues and possible voter fraud or intimidation. If folks even guess that it might be taking place, they should call for free advice.

Bloody good thing I now have a cell phone.

_

A Comment

2010-10-01T13:59:00.000-07:00

I have said this for years and I will continue to say it: The advocacy of Communism is the advocacy of mass murder.

There is simply no excuse for anyone to continue to publicly call for the establishment of a political system that has on average killed over 3,200 people a day since Lenin's coup d'etat in November of 1917. And the death toll continues to rise in Cuba, Mainland China, and North Korea.

Claire Berlinski has more to say on the subject.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Further Reading:

Think Of It As Insanity In Action

Thought For The Day

Rant For The Day

_

OPEN LETTER TO GEN. PETRAEUS

2010-09-25T01:55:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND RE-POST

From www.BurnTheKoranForFreedom.com

OPEN LETTER TO GEN. PETRAEUS

“Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”
– Gen. David Petraeus

A Blast From The Past

2010-09-22T20:35:00.000-07:00

I originally posted the following on my original blog in 2004;

Monday, January 19, 2004

Those Fucking Europeans

GEOFFREY WHEATCROFT in the New York Times wrote:

A large part of the European left spent a large part of the 20th century hating the United States not because it had economic inequality or Jim Crow but because it did not have show trials, labor camps and the other appurtenances of "actually existing socialism."

We Americans (the neo-barbarians on the left excepted) prefer real courts and the other attributes of an actually existing civilization.

Mr. Wheatcroft also dug up an interesting statement by English author Evelyn Waugh:

Of course, the Americans are cowards ... They are almost all the descendants of wretches who deserted their legitimate monarchs for fear of military service.

Fuck you Mister Waugh.

I'm sure General Tojo, Il Duce, und Der Fuherer would be very happy to hear that Americans are cowards. Those bloody-handed power tripping motherfuckers had their destinies very thoroughly settled by those whom that fatuous English twit calls cowards.
The courage of Americans fighting for a just cause has never failed and anyone whose continued existence is (or was in the case of that fatuous English twit) dependent on the courage of American Citizens should properly acknowledge that fact or shut the fuck up.

AMERICANS ARE CITIZENS, not the chattel of some purfumed and over-dressed decendant of some barbarian chieftain (or a commisar or other such sub-human filth), we (and the rest of the human race in general) are not subjects or slaves who exist solely to expended at the whim of the ruler, anyone who cannot accept this as an unevadable fact of reality should have their head struck off and stuck on a pike.

(There, I feel a lot better now.)

Announcement!

2010-09-15T17:12:00.001-07:00

Chuck Prime, who was the sysop for our local Objectivist BBS here in Minneapolis (He moved to Arizona) has set up a couple of interesting sites:

http://www.burnthekoranforfreedom.com/

http://burnthekoranforfreedom.com/wordpress/

This was after I posted a letter from him without his permission:

http://newresister.blogspot.com/2010/09/chuck-prime-on-defiance.html

_

Chuck Prime On Defiance

2010-09-13T00:55:00.000-07:00

Chuck Prime, who was the sysop of our local Objectivist BBS, asked me what I thought about the scheduled burning of a copy of the Koran.

I replied:

The act of publicly burning a Koran could be thought of as either a temper tantrum or a voodoo ceremony depending on if it performed by an atheist or a theist.

Chuck just sent me his view of the matter and I have to say that he is absolutely right:

Or just maybe it's the use of our right to free expression in an act of defiance against our Islamic masters at home and abroad, an act which the quislings in our own government at every level explicitly do NOT want any of us to take.

EVERY American should burn a Koran in defiance. DEFY the goddamned jihadists and their goddamned quislings. This country was FOUNDED on defiance. What have we become?

All this is so blatantly first-year obvious. Why is nobody seeing it? How far into surrender have we sunk when the real issue never even occurs to us? How could we commemorate the 9/11 atrocity this weekend without noticing this?

If we can't burn the Koran - and actually DO it - then we have been conquered, and pretty words about "freedom" and "the First Amendment" have become feel-good lies, a decayed mantra in a zombie version of America.

Do you know that the piece of shit Pat Buchanan actually called for the arrest of Terry Jones in the name of "national security"? And in commentary, the halfwit Bill O'Reilly had to admit that "sadly" such a thing couldn't happen?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4335524/the-downside-of-freedom/?playlist_id=86923

Notch your bullets, man. Because those are CONSERVATIVES - the alleged OPPOSITION to jihadism, and to the altruist statist conformist "shut-'em-down" Tea Party infiltrating left.

Burn that fucking piece of shit: Let the savages hate it. Let it "endanger the military". Facing danger in defense of our rights is their fucking job, and if they won't do it, bring them the fuck home. Let the Pentagon figure out that they have been kidnapped by Islam, and that the ransom demand is that we kiss the ass of muslim sensibilities - or else.

Force those professional appeasers to decide between slaughtering the enemy in defense of our rights, or slaughtering our rights in defense of the enemy.

Right now, they have come out fully in favor of the latter. The last 8 years of this 'war' have clearly been about altruism and nation-building, and Petraeus admitted as much. He and Barack Hussein Osama and all like them should resign in disgrace.

We need a Patton, but a nation this cowardly won't produce one.

Best substitute might come from We The People: a national "Draw Mohammad & Burn The Koran" movement. I'm terrible at motivating others - I'm not a faggot second-handed little 'People Person', which you have to be if you're to get anywhere these days - but I will launch that movement as soon as I figure out how.

This bowing to Islam bullshit is over.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

A Brief Comment

2010-05-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry that I have to say this, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to own a gun.

I believe that it is the moral obligation of each rational adult and the political obligation of each individual citizen, who together constitute the sovereign authority of the United States, to own a working firearm.

The personal weapon is the symbol and instrument of political authority. Those who seek to disarm the citizens of our republic are initiating violence against the sovereign authority, which is the old traditional and practical definition of betrayal, and are therefore levying war against the United States, which is the constitutional definition of treason.

Those who seek to disarm the citizens are enemies of the republic and enemies of Human Kind and should be dealt with as such.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

_

And Now A Word From Comrade Stalin

2010-05-14T17:18:00.001-07:00

From the site of cartoonist John Cox.

_

Announcement

2010-05-01T18:12:00.000-07:00

From now on I will refer to May Day, the First of May, as Mass Murder Day, or as Mass Murderer Day.

_

A Comment

2010-04-26T02:57:00.000-07:00

A long time ago when I still had most of my hair I used to get into big arguments on various USENET news groups. (Remember USENET?)

After reading The Ominous Parallels I began to argue that the basic ideology of the Democratic Party was essentially National Socialism without what could be called the Aryan frills. The comment was influenced by a Goebbels statement that National Socialism was Marxism without what he called the Talmudic frills.

The leftists on USENET of course objected very loudly to being ideologically outed. And of course they persisted in sticking to the Soviet manufactured myth that the NSDAP was a rightist party.

Recently Zombie on his or her blog published a photo from a Leftist demonstration in Los Angeles. (And this is not the first such photo that Zombie has published.)

At this point I believe that it would be reasonable to say that the three things that separate the present day Leftist from the old school National Socialist are a bath, a clean uniform, and a supply of Zyklon-B.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

A Reminder

2010-04-19T05:10:00.000-07:00

William Jefferson Clinton, an unhanged murderer, is publicly whining about the rhetoric of those who oppose the political ascendancy of the Looters.

I will not remain silent.

Seventeen years ago a small community in Texas was destroyed by two packs of predatory animals.

The first pack was a federal agency whose functions were in part a deliberate and explicit violation of the charter and supreme law under which the Federal Government was established.

Even under regulations in effect at the time, the BATF could have sent a couple of agents in coats and ties in a plain government issue sedan to the Branch Davidian residence and asked the federally licensed firearms dealer living there to open his place of business and records to examination. Or if they needed to place the leader of the congregation under arrest they could have taken him into custody while he was out on his morning run. Given Mr. Koresh’s past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.

The BATF did none of the above.

Instead the BATF attempted to stage a military-style assault, code-named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the socialist filth that had just moved into the White House. Never mind all the innocent women and children who could have been maimed or killed during the raid.

After the BATF goons were driven off another pack of predators, the so-called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians.

If it had been necessary to take the Branch Davidian residence by force a trainee platoon from the Benning School for Boys could, in accordance to their training, have entered the building and taken down any armed individuals without deliberately harming the non-combatants. Instead, the HRT, the alleged experts in hostage rescue, proceeded to terrorize the people within the residence. And when the Branch Davidians refused to surrender, they were exterminated by the HRT.

The HRT used some armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the ambient wind to blow through the structure while other armored vehicles injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.

And then the HRT fired incendiary devices into the building.

While the Branch Davidian residence burned to the ground on live television, HRT gunmen stationed behind the building out of sight of the TV cameras shot anyone who attempted to escape the fire from the rear of the building.

The Democrat majority in both houses of Congress were not the slightest bit appalled by the atrocity, instead of condemning the president for his actions and initiating the process of impeaching and removing President Clinton, they chose instead to condemn the victims and those who dared to speak up for them.

Given the choice of obeying the supreme law or violating the law, they chose to violate the law.

Given the choice of preserving innocent life or destroying it, they chose to destroy innocent life.

President Clinton and the Democratic Party could have obeyed the Constitution, the Supreme Law to which the President, the Congress, and the Federal Government in general were subject and stopped the terrorization and murder of the Branch Davidians, but instead chose to violate the Supreme Law.

And like a number of illiterate barbarian chieftains before him, President Clinton and his party used the murder of the Branch Davidians to demonstrate to the rest of us what would happen to anyone who refused to submit to their will. Instead of standing up for the rights and lives of Americans they chose instead to terrorize and murder Americans.

Since then the words “democrat”, and "progressive" have become in my mind synonymous with the concept “murderer.” If there is one complaint I had about President George W. Bush it is that he has done nothing during his two full terms in office to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

Thank you President Bush, for nothing.

Now that the Party of Death has been given control of both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government by a coalition of Depraved-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans we should not be surprised to see yet another demonstration of the depravity and destructive power of the new rulers and those in government and the established media who willingly serve them.

And we will have no choice but to respond in kind.

Clinton and the other perpetrators of the act of state terror known as the Waco Massacre remain at large. We can reasonably assume that the Looter regime in Washington will continue to do nothing to correct this situation.

Once again I am posting the links to an independent report on the murder by agents of the Federal Government of the Branch Davidians in their residence outside of Waco, Texas.

The following article was electronically published on the LIBERNET Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I morally condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

_

A Brief Comment

2010-01-05T13:43:00.000-08:00

I had a little chat with a postal worker on why they aren't delivering mail to the apartment building that I just moved into. I also spoke to the representative of the building owner on why she can't get the post office to deliver mail to the building.

An iron law (if not THE iron law) of bureaucracy is that the so-called workers in the system will make the least effort necessary in order to collect their paychecks. The ideal situation of course is that the bureaucrat should do no work at all in order to collect their pay. [1] Thus it should be no surprise to us that a new generation of Islamic suicide bombers are penetrating security checkpoints manned by the employees of a Federal agency.

In the private sector a serious failure of that magnitude would result in the firing of the employee who failed to do his job and possible criminal prosecution. In the Federal sector a lazy bum is protected by the civil service apparatus. And God help you if you try to discipline an affirmative action diversity hireling. [2]

The Left, in what they imagine to be their infinite wisdom, is now pushing for placing the entire field of medicine in the hands of people who have no stake in the outcome of medical treatments. Whether you, or the most precious members of your family, live or die is simply irrelevant to them as long as they collect their paychecks and pensions. There is no shortage of horror stories coming out of nations where the state provides universal health care. [3]

Innocent people will die needlessly when the state takes over the field of medicine. The nice term for this is murder.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

1. I've been led to understand that this has been actually achieved in some places in Africa.

2. This may explain why the Democratic Party nominated a grossly inexperienced African-American instead of Hillary Clinton. Apparently many on the left may have felt that the race of Die Grosse Null made him immune from criticism. Not only critics of the policies and actions of the Obama administration are being called racists, they are being called such in a manner similar to the way the old school Klansmen used to describe their victims as "uppity niggers."

3. Livestock on American capitalist farms receive better medical care than the subjects of the Cuban communist state.
_

Rant of the Day

2009-10-20T13:51:00.000-07:00

Charles Johnson, the master of Little Green Footballs, is apparently appalled that Rush Limbaugh made the suggestion that a professional Enemy of Human Kind should commit suicide.

Part of what Mr. Limbaugh said was:

The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

Comrade Revkin has suggested that us mere mortals should voluntarily limit our reproduction in order to limit the emission of carbon dioxide by human beings. (Never mind the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural component of the terrestrial atmosphere whose quantity has been discernibly decreasing over the course of geological time.)

But because rational persons, who naturally refuse to believe the nonsense emitted by environmentalists, will not voluntarily limit the number of children they have -- so that a bunch of moral parasites can feel good about themselves -- there will be open calls for limitation of "breeders" by force. This will be followed, by those true believers in power, by the actual exercise of force to control breeding, through forced abortions and sterilization. Which in turn will be followed by the elimination of those "breathers" who are deemed by Environmentalist Elites (the Elect of Gaia, as it were) to be useless or "counter-environmental."

The nice words for this are subjugation and murder.

We should not be the slightest bit surprised that the Environmentalists will join the ranks of the mass-murderers because they, like the socialists that they evolved from, basically see productive humans as livestock to controlled and used. They see us creatures without a right to live.

There's a proper term for those who deny your Right of Life, they are properly called mortal enemies.

Charles Johnson has decided to hang with the Enemies of Mankind. He shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised when he is hanged with them.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Update at 1715 CDT:

Apparently I beat Mr. Limbaugh to the thought two years earlier:

Actually there's one more thing this depraved bitch could do to reduce her impact on her beloved Gaia. Kill herself. It's not like she has a real conscience and therefore a functional soul. She's already Darwined herself.

Any questions?
_

Horror Quote

2009-10-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

Recently, before I was blocked from posting at Little Green Footballs, I made a humorous comment. It went like this:

The difference between a Fascist and a Leftist is that one of them has a clean uniform.

In reality both the Fascisti (and their ideological kin the National Socialists) and the self-styled Progressives of all eras share the same fundamental central idea, a belief in the Primacy of the Parasite. A belief that treats the ordinary person as a tool to be used, with the product of their labor treated as the property of the collective which in turn is distributed in accordance to those needs which are identified by the leaders of the collective. And as a rule the needs of the leadership, which is in reality a wish list, take precedence over the actual needs of the productive class. (Or perhaps we should describe the productive class as a caste.)

Because willful parasitism is distinctly different as a mode of existence from that of being a rational and productive man, this leads to distinct differences in how parasites answer moral and political questions.

Where rational men prefer to deal with each other through explicit consent the parasite must take what it needs through coercion, either by fraud or by open force. (And the admitted crimes of Roman Polanski weren't even in mind when I started writing this particular rant.)

Because the parasite must control the productive population it must claim, always fraudulently, a superior status over their victims (Oops! There's Roman Polanski (and his defenders) again!) and must possess complete control over them. This means that the parasites conception of law and justice (when they bother to think at all) is essentially the opposite of that of rational men.

Justice to a parasite is simply getting away with the parasitic mode of existence. Crime is simply any resistance, regardless of intent or degree, to the actions of the parasite. And laws are simply an excuse to carry out punitive violence against the producers.

The parasites in their delusion of superior status are tempted to feel that the ordinary productive person is nothing more than an animal. And because they usually succumb to this temptation they usually seek to control the external stimuli that ordinary humans experience and thus control the behavior of those they have deemed to be livestock. Thus the establishment of the Reichsministry of Culture by the German state under the NSDAP. And also recent effort of American Progressives to censor talk radio and the internet in order to reestablish the primacy of the Progressive ideological clique that effectively controls the mainstream media.

Of course the control of external stimuli doesn't work with rational men.

When the attempt to control by fraud doesn't work the parasites have no alternative but to use open force.

To the parasites the active consciousness of the rational man is not a normal state but is instead a sign that there is something wrong. Those who do not obey the self-appointed shepherds are looked upon as diseased animals. Something that must be destroyed before they infect the entire herd. The systematic murder of whole populations is looked upon not as a mass crime but as a moral necessity in the parasite's view.

So it is not a surprise to me to find that some believers in the Primacy of the Parasite who presently reside here in the United States (I won't call them Americans) are now calling for the murder of those who refuse to submit to the rule of the parasite master caste.

A case in point is that uberparasit from Minnesota, Garrison Keillor. Were it not for that tax-fed pig-sty known as "public radio" this walking waste of mass and energy would not exist at all. It would actually be reasonable to identify him as a talentless and tedious bore. And being not a typical parasite, but a full-blown archparasite, he of course has the usual parasite view of those who rationally refuse to support his mode of existence. He calls them evil.

And now he is calling for their murder through the apparatus of the state:

...one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

In other words, why waste resources on diseased animals?

Steve Barry, the editor and publisher of The Resister once told me that we as political writers have to dehumanize our opponents. I disagreed. My reply was that as a result of what our opponents choose to believe and how they choose to act they have dehumanized themselves.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Morons of the Day

2009-09-19T23:29:00.000-07:00

While I'm at it I should also mention that a previously mentioned group of morons is still at it.

Here's their website, I won't bother to quote the site this time. Just read it yourself.

A rational study of the real world would show that a real state of Peace is effectively indistinguishable from a state of Liberty and a state of Security. Peace, Liberty, and Security are simply three words that a rational person uses to describe the same condition, the rightful ability to live one's own life without coercive interference by others.

A rational study of actual history would show that the state of peace for the citizens of a free nation is the result of the violent elimination of the would be conquerors and their pet quislings.

If we rationally examine those who constitute the membership of the so-called Peace Movement we find that virtually every one of them is an open advocate of the coercive subjugation of the productive members of the Human Race. The occasional exception being a self-blinded fool who isn't paying attention to what they're ideologically in bed with.

In short, a "peace activist" and the "peace movement" are in fact enemies of Peace.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Down The Memory Hole?

2009-09-09T04:44:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I posted a link to news story to the RWING mailing list and the first paragraph of the story about a detail of Die Grosse Null's plan for destroying the health of Americans.

"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul."

Are we now on a plantation? Or is the Chicago Democrat setting up a protection racket?

This morning when I clicked on the link I found that the story had been changed. The subject of the original first paragraph had been moved down the page and rewritten.

"One provision would fine families up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance, essentially requiring that everyone have medical coverage, much like the case with car insurance. Obama rejected a mandate, and fines, during his presidential campaign."

Oh, they were only thinking about it, but they decided not to do it. (Or have they?)

They should not have been thinking about it at all.

What do they, both in our so-called government and in the mainstream media, think we are? A bunch of mindless animals?

I'll update this story as circumstances require.

_

On Euthanasia

2009-08-13T11:33:00.001-07:00

In the collectivist version of a social-political order founded on the Primacy of the Parasite the ordinary person is looked upon as a tool to be used, the product of their labor is treated as the property of the collective which is distributed in accordance to those needs which are identified by the leaders of the collective.

An individual who is retired from the workforce requires food, housing, and medical care, all of which is taken from the collective pool of assets without any input to the resource pool from the retiree in return. From the point of view of the collective leadership a retiree is a liability to the collective. The good of the collective requires the reduction of such liabilities as early as possible. Thus it is in the best interest of the collective to encourage self-termination by the elderly and the seriously or terminally ill. And it is also in the best interest of the collective to abort those fetuses that will not grow up to be productive workers in the collective.

And if you think that what I just wrote is outrageous, then think again. One group of collectivists, the National Socialists of Germany, actually carried out a program of euthanasia on developmentally challenged individuals of all ages.

Anyone who believes that an individual has no inherent Right to Life is capable of believing anything and, as history has demonstrated, capable of doing anything.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Question

2009-08-02T19:29:00.001-07:00

I have a question for all of the folks out there who are obsessed about the birth certificate:

Even if Barack Obama was found ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as a result of the circumstances of his birth, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD STEP DOWN FROM THAT OFFICE OR THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS (WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY HIS PARTY) WOULD IN ANY WAY COMPEL HIM TO LEAVE?

I have to very seriously doubt that.

To the parasites, like the Democratic Party, power over the productive citizens of this nation is necessary for their very existence.

In short, and I simply cannot emphasize this enough: POWER IS LIFE.

Any restraint on that power -- be it the freedom of speech and press, the rights to self defense and to bear arms, or the free election of public officials (and laws regulating who may hold a specific office) -- is a danger to the parasite's continued existence.

I would expect the Democratic Party to band together and claim that the "will of the people" in some way trumps the Constitution, the terms under which the Federal Government was established.

Barack Obama and his closest supporters apparently believe that are on the "Progressive" version of a holy mission. To quit is to negate the self-concept that they have adopted for themselves. I absolutely believe that the act of surrendering power is literally unthinkable for them.

Quite frankly I really think that he would rather die than surrender power.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
+

Definition of the Day

2009-08-01T05:26:00.000-07:00

From the New Devil's Dictionary (One of my other projects):

Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.

While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.

There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.

Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.

A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:

My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.

There's a reason people like this are called peasants.

Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.

A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.

What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!

The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)

What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.

Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.

It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

So Anyway

2009-07-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

I do a lot of posting over at Little Green Footballs as The Other Les.

Charles Johnson, the owner of the site, exercising his rightful control of the contents of his site, has just deleted a comment I made concerning the nature of Islam and the false prophet who created it.

Charles went as far as to make a suggestion:

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

If he doesn't want me to make a statement of fact on his site then I won't.

But reality is what it is and I will simply repost what I said right here.

I was responding to an adherent of Islam, who like most self appointed superior beings wrote a load of falsehoods and outright antihuman nonsense.

The last sentence of that vile rant was:

Insh'allah one day there will be no more kufr.

"Kufr", meaning "bugs" is one of their terms for those who refuse to submit to the depraved whims of the False Prophet Mohammad and those who persist in enforcing the doctrine of Islam.

I replied:

On that day the Human Race will be for all practical purposes, extinct.

All that will be left are the hominid livestock of a false god.

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the False Prophet Mohammad did not seek to master the world, but to be the master of men. The False Prophet Mohammad sought not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To False Prophet Mohammad, justice consisted of "getting away with it" --
those who rightfully tried to resist the False Prophet Mohammad were enslaved or murdered.

I happen to completely agree with Robert A. Heinlein when he wrote that those who make slaves of other men were less than human. I also agree with Ayn Rand when she said that those who make slaves of other men should be extinct.

There is simply no excuse for such behavior.

And then I quoted Ayn Rand from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Now I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Johnson does not want a statement of fact on his website. I would suggest, here and now, that he perform what Ayn Rand used to call a Premise Check. Or what my drill sergeants at Fort Benning used to describe as the removal of his head from his fifth point of contact.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Sigh...

2009-07-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

I probably should have gathered more material to do a proper Horror Quote article, but I felt compelled to do an immediate refutation of this particular piece of nonsense:

Pinochet’s regime went on to become one of the most oppressive and brutal organizations of the 20th Century.

-- "Gringo Joe", 10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America, The List Universe

The first thing that immediately came to mind was the fact that the Administration of General Pinochet killed fewer than 3000 Marxists in the sixteen years of its existence. Whereas the minimum estimated death toll of Marxist regimes since Lenin's coup d'etat in November of 1917 is 110 million.* That runs to a bit over 3200 deaths a day on average. Do the math.

One may argue that the Pinochet administration didn't kill enough Marxists. One may also argue that killing a Marxist is not an inherently brutal act, but is an action which has the practical effect of preventing brutality.

(Of course one may also ask if it could EVER be possible to kill "enough" Marxists.)

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

* "In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987."

-- Professor R.J. Rummel, HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?
_

Rant of the Day

2009-07-10T04:09:00.001-07:00

David Kahane on National Review Online wrote:

In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

Let me repeat with emphasis on the fundamental point:

...stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party... think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

I've been saying this for years, and for my trouble I've been called all sorts of names and subjected to calls for violence against my own person by the apologists and outright adherents of statism.

The first violent crime was committed before the recording of history when some now nameless thug turned his spear, a tool created to feed and protect human beings, against another human being to take by violence something from that now nameless victim.

The fundamental crime of the Democratic Party is to turn the apparatus of government -- at all levels, local, state, and federal -- against the people that governments were created to protect, the productive citizens of a free and civilized nation.

The Democrats have rejected the principle of consent as the basis of the social and political order and have sought to materially and spiritually benefit from the coercion of the productive population. Their preferred method of obtaining power, the simple majority vote (or the claim of same) with no constitutional restraints on power obtained, is simply the exercise of brute force given a happy face.

They have appointed themselves a class of masters and condemned us, the citizens of the United States, to servitude to them. This is morally intolerable.

If our families and our nation is to have a future then the Democratic Party, and their bipartisan country club collaborators, must be permanently removed from office and rendered permanently impotent in the political sphere of action. And if this means that some of their dead bodies have to be dropped into the nearest convenient landfill with the rest of the garbage, then let us do it.

Yes, I know that cancer surgery and chemotherapy is rough, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. I believe that we should be no less ruthless in the effort to destroy the tyranny of the looters and to create a new rational political order for ourselves and our own children.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Blast From The Past

2009-07-05T21:13:00.000-07:00

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Of course when I advocate literally returning fire at the practitioners of force I get called all sorts of names, like "the embodiment of all evil on Earth."
_

A Short Rant

2009-07-03T02:19:00.000-07:00

Back when I was writing for the original edition of The Resister I used to have a lot of fun through the process of morally kicking a number of token African columnists for various newspapers. A case in point is Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe. My lack of God! What an idiot!

In fact, given the origin of the term idiot, as a Greek term for someone who doesn’t participate in public life, Mr. Jackson would actually have to work his way up to qualify as one.

According to Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer at the Not Evil Just Wrong website Mr. Jackson has a problem with saving human lives. Specifically the lives of children in Africa.

"The use of DDT makes me shudder," Mr. Jackson said as he traveled through Uganda.

Now why would he have a problem with a substance that is known to harm only the disease carrying insects that kill his fellow Africans?

Because once upon a time ago a morally sick woman by the name of Rachel Carson told a lie. She said that DDT was killing the cute little birdies before they were hatched from their eggs.

This assertion has never been verified. But so what? Politicians who posture as "environmentally conscious" chose to ban the use of DDT as a pesticide anyway. The result is a bodycount through malaria that apparently rivals that run up by the followers of Hitler or Stalin.

If there were in fact a Dark Lord of Hell, he would have to pat the shade of Rachel Carson on the head and say, in the tone of voice used by the teachers of mentally retarded children, “GOOD JOB!”

In reality the life of a human being must have a superior moral value in any valid moral system. Even if a bunch of cute little birdies have to die so a child can live, we should not have a ethical problem with that. And anyone who does have a problem with that should not be allowed to hold any position of political authority.

But Derrick Z. Jackson is also a Socialist. Which means that the idea that a mere human being is more than an animal, and thus has a superior right to live, is shall we say, double-plus ungood to him.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

A Prediction.

2009-07-01T20:02:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama will send American forces to Honduras to restore former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by force, or will use American civil and military resources to support a third party invasion (by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua) to do the same.

(For a short explanation of what's going on down there I will refer you to Neil Boortz's article on the situation.)

Some people may object to this prediction. They insist on believing that we are now living in a new age of peace, love, and happy chocolates. And that under the rule of our new political messiah a military intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is now a thing of the past. I wouldn't be surprised if those same people still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Barbara Streisand.

My answer to such infantile objections is this, to the those who uphold the moral and legal primacy of the parasite, POWER IS LIFE. Thus any obstacle to absolute power is essentially seen as toxic to would-be absolute ruler.

The President of Honduras attempted to violate the Honduran Constitution and refused to obey an order of the Honduran Supreme Court. As a result he was removed from office in accordance to Honduran law. What the armed forces of Honduras did is in no way, morally or legally, distinguishable from that of a police officer or sheriff enforcing an order issued by a local judge.

Think of it as a constitutional republic in action.

But to the neolithic god-kings and their mobs of worshipers the exercise of the actual rule of law is an abomination. It sets an example to the people of other nations (and I'm looking at YOU my fellow Americans) for how to properly deal with would be dictators. (Of course I also favor the application of one round to the head in the old Soviet style, just to be damned sure.) To the tyrannophiles this is a crime that must be punished.

So don't be surprised if we hear that American troops are being sent to Honduras in order to "restore" democracy.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Horror Quotes

2009-06-27T05:49:00.000-07:00

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean

Obviously he is not referring to the disgusting habit on the part of the Grand Old Party of bipartisanship, the compromising with and appeasing the anti-human nihilist trash, such as Comrade Dean, that make up the Democratic Party.

What Comrade Dean is likely referring to are the inconsistent occasions when the Republicans have upheld the basic rights of Man, such as Right of Life, followed by the subsidiary rights of Liberty and Property.

A right of the individual is a restraint upon the powers of government and society as a whole. Which is perfectly all right for those of us who are rational and productive. But to those who irrationally choose parasitism as their mode of existence an individual right is like staring at the muzzle of a shotgun that is aimed at their own heads.

Because a rational individual cannot be expected to willfully consent to having a parasite living continually at their expense, the parasite must resort to force and fraud in order to sustain its own life.

Thus the parasite must by necessity favor the establishment and maintenance of a state of dictatorship, with a fully functional apparatus of censorship and repression, and must oppose a free society with a government that is accountable to the citizen body.

He who has steel, has bread

– Benito Mussolini

To the parasites, power over the productive is necessary for their very existence.

In short, and I simply cannot emphasize this enough: POWER IS LIFE.

Any restraint on that power -- be it the freedom of speech and press, the rights to self defense and to bear arms, or the free election of public officials -- is a danger to the parasite's continued existence.

On the issue of violent crime it appears that the sympathies of parasites are not with the victims but are with the criminals, they will publicly object to the execution of a quadruple murderer but care nothing about his victims.

But then a parasite has a radically different conception of crime and punishment.

It is better to kill one hundred innocents than to let one guilty person go.

-- Dolores Ibarruri ("La Pasionaria"), Spanish Communist

A criminal act in a rationally governed society is a violation of an individual’s rights. In a rational society it is also understood that because human beings are not omniscient or always honest, it is therefore possible that an innocent person may be prosecuted for a crime by mistake or as a result of an act of malice. It is this fact that leads to the creation of the Due Process of Law that is practiced by a rational government. (And which is all too often twisted around by criminals and their legal supporters to their advantage.)

But a parasite is dependent on the violation of individual rights for his sustenance. Thus the parasite’s conception of crime and justice must be opposed to that of a rational society. Justice to a parasite is simply getting away with the parasitic mode of existence. Crime is simply any resistance, regardless of intent or degree, to the actions of the parasite.

My wealth is spear and sword, the stout shield which protects my flesh; with this I plough, with this I reap, with this I tread the sweet wine of the grape, with this I am the entitled master of the serfs.

-- Cretan Warrior (Quoted by John Keegan in A HISTORY OF WARFARE, page 242)

The parasite basically views the productive population as a form of livestock. Therefore anyone who objects to this status or otherwise resists the moral and legal primacy of the parasite is identified as a diseased animal and is dealt with as such. Sometimes the whole herd is subjected to culling, as the Ukrainians were under Stalin. Lenin’s command to kill the Kulaks and Ibarruri’s open contempt for the lives of others were not aberrations, they are simply instances of the normal behavior of parasites in power.

Rational people will tolerate the long and drawn out appeals process for death penalty cases, as frustrating as it is, because they want to be certain that an innocent person will not be put to death. The parasites, when they are in absolute power, simply don't care.

Rational people believe in liberty and justice. Parasites on the other hand, don't care how high the pile of human corpses is as long as they are firmly seated on top.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Just A Reminder

2009-06-21T18:30:00.000-07:00

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the predator, or savage mentality does not seek to to master the world, but to be the master of men. The savage prefers not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To the predator, justice consists of "getting away with it" -- those who rightfully resist the predator are to be punished or destroyed.

-- Leslie Bates, The Resister, Vol VI, N. 1, Page 42

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

What Is Civil Order

2009-06-19T09:12:00.000-07:00

Another old text file that I found which I shall post verbatim:

Subj: Enemies of Civil Order.
From: Leslie Bates #105
To : All
Date: Sun, Nov 27, 1994 7:59:17 AM

I found the following item on the talk.politics.guns newsgroup:

> From: Terry Liberty-Parker
>> Date: 18 Nov 94 12:20:07
>
>
> The New Enemy
>
> "Parameters", the journal of the Army War College, has
>published an article by a Maj. Ralph Peters which identifies
>the next "enemy" of the "Politicized" Bill/Hillary Clinton
>military as U.S. Patriots, defined as the "Warrior Class".
>Patriots are described as "Erratic Primitives of Shifting
>Allegiances, Habitated to Violence with no stake in Civil Order".

And I posted the following reponse:

Civil Order as understood by adherents of the Platonic/Hegelian/Marxist/Nazi collectivist ("progressive," "caring," etc.) philosophical tradition is a social state in which we, the hominid livestock, live as directed by our self appointed masters.

The bipedal cattle who do not obey are visited by the "Guardians"/SS/ATF or other such creatures.

Civil Order in the real world as described by Aristotle and Ayn Rand is the societal condition in which we, the humans, are free to live by our own judgement of the facts of reality for our own purposes, without being put upon by thugs and tyrants.

The enemies of true civil order will always try as Orwell warned us, "...to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable," as had happened at Waco. When we accept the defintions given by our enemies, we lose. For the Clintons and their collaborators to call us "Erratic Primitives," is nothing less than a Nazi style smear.

In the real world we must define or be defined.

The Clintons and the other self styled "progressives" have tried, through their so called "health reform" and other such actions, to force us into a state of dependency and servitude. To turn the United States of America, the greatest nation on this planet into a vast slave labor camp. These are not the actions of the defenders of "civil order." These are attacks on civilization and Mankind as such.

We must see reality for what it is, things for what they are, and people for who they are. We, the defenders of American Civilization, must show our families, friends, and neighbors that we are who we are, and that our enemies are what they are.

Socialism is slavery and socialists are slavers. And as far as I am concerned, all slavers, regardless of what auditory garbage they put forth as an excuse, are enemies of Mankind fit only for extermination.

_

Something I Wrote In 1995

2009-06-19T07:38:00.000-07:00

Last summer I was a witness to a drive-by-shouting.

I was attending the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Minneapolis. It was early in the morning, I had just picked up my name tag and was going to spend some time at a downtown newsstand. As I left the convention center a white Honda sped past and an emaciated college-age girl stuck her head out the window and shouted "KILLERS!"

I took this as an instance of the kind of mindless posturing that is indulged in by the walking brain-death cases that one finds on university campuses. At the time it was amusing. Had such an incident occurred in the days following the bombing of Oklahoma City, I would have found such an incident to be frightening.

In the wake of the bombing there has been in electronic and print media a major campaign to smear gun-owners and to blame the patriot militias for the bombing. In one case, "Day One," a televised "news magazine" attempted to link The RESISTER with such sub-sapient garbage as the so-called Aryan Nations. No assertion was too absurd in the effort to dehumanize any citizen who thought for himself, and accepted personal responsibility for the safety of himself, his family and his country.

Those citizens or groups such as the NRA who ask that the United States be governed in a constitutional and civilized manner are demonized as hatemongers. Accurate descriptions of the character and conduct of the president and of certain anti-constitutional federal agencies are dismissed as paranoid, weird and outrageous. Objections to the further repressive measures demanded by the attorney general and the FBI are denounced as hysteric. Calls for justice for the scores of American citizens murdered at the hands of federal officers are simply blanked-out.

The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis on its Sunday editorial page of 30 April, 1995, has scapegoated the NRA for the bombing of Oklahoma City. In total defiance of reason it declares:

[T]he Oklahoma City bombing is a bloody shirt that the NRA and lots of others are going to have to wear for a long time.

This is beyond appalling, this is beyond outrageous, to anyone who understands the lessons of history it is absolutely frightening.

The Star-Tribune (and the media establishment in general) continues to show it's long standing hatred of the intellectually and morally independent, and of the men and women who accept the full responsibilities of American citizenship. In imputing guilt to the innocent it shows it's continued contempt for justice.

I am afraid that in scapegoating patriots and in endorsing the expansion of federal power, the Star-Tribune and others in the electronic and print media have taken more steps toward the construction of a American Auschwitz.
_

Some More Old Stuff.

2009-06-17T16:21:00.000-07:00

Something I found on an old 3.5 inch floppy disk. I think I submitted this somewhere... I did polish it a bit before posting it here.

Once upon a time ago the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (a.k.a. the Star-Pravda, or as my former landlady (Years before "she" had "the operation") simply called it: "the Hammer and Sickle") ran on page F14 on the January 7, 1996, Sunday edition, a review of the second edition of "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change" by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. (Stillpoint Press, $14.95 SC)

I don't know if the review accurately portrays the content of the work, but the StarTribune did have (and still has) a statist agenda and this review does appear to promote it.

I'll try to summarize the review and throw in some comments.

THE SUMMARY

The reviewer "Tom Di Nanni," (whom I am quoting) claims that the book "offers some credible and chilling possibilities," in answer to the question of how such events as the tragedy of Waco and bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City.

The authors believed that they a common element in the behavior of cult members. "Former members consistently talked about a moment when their minds seemed to 'snap'."

"Snapping" was the term the authors used to describe the sudden, drastic alteration in personality that was fast becoming an American epidemic.

The authors believe that snapping was not the result of "classic mental illnesses such as paranoia or schizophrenia," but of something they named "Information Disease," in which the communication techniques used by "cults ... and so-called 'Christian' survivalist militia ... can alter the way the brain processes and assimilates information."

"Information Disease" is a fundamental alteration of a person's information-processing capacities, the fundamental way a person thinks, feels, remembers and makes choices. Simply put, if the human mind is subjected repeatedly and persistently to information that contradicts what it previously "knew," the new information will replace the old. In order to accommodate the new and contradictory information, the mind will alter how and what a person remembers and how that person perceives his or her environment.

The "new" information can be packaged in hours of Krishna chants or in hour after hour of David Koresh's "Bible studies." It can enter and alter the mind in the apocalyptic sermons of religious fundamentalist preachers or in the incessant claims of militia leaders that "the government is out to get us."

Furthermore the authors:

... describe a predictable "death spiral" that ran wild in Jonestown and Waco as believers became fanatic zealots. The spiral is evident in the message and tactics of "Christian Patriots" whose cult-like recruitment methods and ritualized indoctrination could have contributed to, and may have even spawned, the events in Oklahoma City.

If the authors are right:

... "snapping" is a threat to all of us. we are inundated with masses of information and mountains of technology. Many of us feel overwhelmed and overloaded as our minds try to turn that information into something meaningful. In that state of confusion, we become susceptible to information manipulation -- by advertisers, political "spin doctors," idealogues, and religious extremists.

COMMENTARY

The distinction between reason and faith is completely blanked out.

With the exception of the philosopher kings, represented here by Tom the Nanny, man is merely an automaton that responds to stimuli. Any actual evidence that the government is acting in a consistently criminal manner is dismissed as invalid. Everyone who attempts to resist the forces of treason and tyranny is identified as being insane and should be dealt with as such.

The between the lines message is damned obvious.

Since no man is to be trusted to run his own life, the all-knowing state, so beloved by the Star-Tribune, will run his life for him. In order to save man from "Information Disease" it will be necessary to institute a program of censorship.

The act of censoring prevents men from obtaining the knowledge they require to exercise rational judgment in the course their lives, often being reduced to acting on emotional impulse. Censorship reduces man to a less than human mode of existence. In such a state a man is driven, as livestock is, along a course he would never have rationally chosen.

In short, censorship is an act of enslavement. My favorite Science Fiction author, Robert A. Heinlein had this to say about the practitioners of slavery:

If the human animal has any value at all, he is too valuable to be property. If he has any inner dignity, he is much too proud to own other men. I don't give a damn how well scrubbed and perfumed he may be, a slaveowner is subhuman.

In my personal view, slave owners and those who seek to act as such are subhuman creatures fit only for extermination.

The practitioners of censorship have chosen to behave as slave owners, I seek only to treat them as such.

[I must admit that during the earlier media hysteria campaign about cults in the late '70's, I was once literally in fear of being grabbed off the street by cultists and "programmed". This fear was certainly unfounded. On the one and only time I was approached my a member of the Unification Church, I simply told him that I was an atheist and he simply went away.]

Now, what are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

2009-05-25T03:28:00.000-07:00

From cartoonist John Cox:

Now there are some folks, who regard themselves as morally superior beings, who question why the other bastard has to die. The answer of course is that the other bastard is attempting to impose his will, or the will of his leader, upon you by force. It is the act of coercion by force that makes what General Patton called the other bastard an enemy.

Peace is simply the absence of enemies.

But there are some folks, who pretend to be morally superior beings, who would have us believe that "peace" could be achieved by submission to the will of the other bastard. In reality this is not peace, it is slavery.

There are some well meaning people, some of whom that I respect, who believe that there are times that one cannot have both peace and freedom at the same time.

I have to disagree.

Liberty is simply the condition of existence in which the person is free to live his own life in accordance with his own rational judgment. This does of course require the absence of some other bastard who is attempting to impose his will upon the person by force.

In practical terms real peace and real freedom are inseparable. I will go further is saying that to a civilized person, peace, freedom, and security, are simply three words that can be used to describe the identical condition, the absence of another bastard imposing his will upon the civilized person.

Contrary to what those who describe themselves as peace activists would have us believe, and as General Patton has ably demonstrated, the path to real peace invariably takes us over the real dead bodies of those other bastards who insist on violently imposing their will upon us.

Unfortunately this process is by no means a safe one.

Let us take this day to remember those who died on the path to real peace.
_

John Bergstrom Doesn't Play Well With Others

2009-05-20T06:44:00.001-07:00

John (aka Varmint) wrote a comment:

So far Obama has waffled on Guantanamo, rendition and tribunals. during the campaign he even pretended to respect gun rights. But abortion is something he has never compromised on. it is very important to him for some reason. strip everything else away and he still believes in it.

Here's my theory:

If we believe that the Right to Life (and the causally subsequent Rights of Liberty, etc.) begins at conception, then at what point (short of a conviction for a capital offense) can that right be denied to a person? Voluntary Socialism has been repeatedly proven (The Plymouth Colony, Jonestown,etc.) to not work. Thus in order for Socialism to "work" it has to be made compulsory, through the credible threat of violence against productive persons. Which means that any social concept that restrains the power of the state, such as the Rights of Life and Liberty, has to be rendered invalid. Preferably by the victims themselves. What Ayn Rand used to call the Sanction of the Victim.

The term "pro-choice" is a typical socialist inversion of meaning. To deny the Right to Life of a fetus would be in moral effect to deny the Right of Life to that person for the entire span of his or her life. Thus it would open the door to the Coercive Socialism through the credible threat of deadly force against productive persons.

But as the history of the Soviet Union has shown, that doesn't work either.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

(Yes, I know what Rand's position on abortion is.)
_

Blast From The Past

2009-05-19T18:19:00.001-07:00

This one is directed to the Washington Establishment in general and both houses of Congress in particular:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!

Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

-- Oliver Cromwell, Speech to the Rump Parliament, April 20, 1653

Hat tip to Dr. John Ray.

_

Blast From The Past

2009-05-03T04:35:00.000-07:00

"There was once, O men of Athens, something in the minds of the people that is no longer there --something that defeated the might and wealth of Persia, that vindicated the liberty of Greece, the was never conquered on land or sea, and that is now gone, leaving all Greece in turmoil and dismay.

"And what was that? Nothing elaborate or abstruse, but the simple fact all men hated those who took bribes from the seekers of power and the agents of subversion. That was accounted the greatest of crimes, so that he who was convicted of having been corrupted of bribes or by favors was condemned to the ultimate penalty, with no room for excuse and no hope for pardon.

... But now everything is for sale ... For what are now the consequences of treason? Envy, for those who have profited; laughter for those who confess; pardon for those who are convicted; and hatred--hatred is now reserved for the man who speaks harshly of treason."

-- Demosthenes, 341 B.C. (written three years before Athens lost her independence)

_

Anniversary of the Waco Massacre

2009-04-19T04:31:00.000-07:00

Sixteen years ago a small community in Texas was destroyed by two packs of predatory animals.

The first pack was a federal agency whose functions were in part a deliberate and explicit violation of the charter and supreme law under which the Federal Government was established.

Even under regulations in effect at the time, the BATF could have sent a couple of agents in coats and ties in a plain government issue sedan to the Branch Davidian residence and asked the federally licensed firearms dealer living there to open his place of business and records to examination. Or if they needed to place the leader of the congregation under arrest they could have taken him into custody while he was out on his morning run. Given Mr. Koresh’s past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.

The BATF did none of the above.

Instead the BATF attempted to stage a military-style assault, code-named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the socialist filth that had just moved into the White House. Never mind all the innocent women and children who could have been maimed or killed during the raid.

After the BATF goons were driven off another pack of predators, the so-called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians.

If it had been necessary to take the Branch Davidian residence by force a trainee platoon from the Benning School for Boys could, in accordance to their training, have entered the building and taken down any armed individuals without deliberately harming the non-combatants. Instead, the HRT, the alleged experts in hostage rescue, proceeded to terrorize the people within the residence. And when the Branch Davidians refused to surrender, they were exterminated by the HRT.

The HRT used some armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the ambient wind to blow through the structure while other armored vehicles injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.

And then the HRT fired incendiary devices into the building.

While the Branch Davidian residence burned to the ground on live television, HRT gunmen stationed behind the building out of sight of the TV cameras shot anyone who attempted to escape the fire from the rear of the building.

The Democrat majority in both houses of Congress were not the slightest bit appalled by the atrocity, instead of condemning the president for his actions and initiating the process of impeaching and removing President Clinton, they chose instead to condemn the victims and those who dared to speak up for them.

Given the choice of obeying the supreme law or violating the law, they chose to violate the law.

Given the choice of preserving innocent life or destroying it, they chose to destroy innocent life.

President Clinton and the Democratic Party could have obeyed the Constitution, the Supreme Law to which the President, the Congress, and the Federal Government in general were subject and stopped the terrorization and murder of the Branch Davidians, but instead chose to violate the Supreme Law.

And like a number of illiterate barbarian chieftains before him, President Clinton and his party used the murder of the Branch Davidians to demonstrate to the rest of us what would happen to anyone who refused to submit to their will. Instead of standing up for the rights and lives of Americans they chose instead to terrorize and murder Americans.

Since then the words “democrat”, and "progressive" have become in my mind synonymous with the concept “murderer.” If there is one complaint I have about President George W. Bush it is that he has done nothing during his two full terms in office to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

Thank you President Bush, for nothing.

Now that the Party of Death has been given control of both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government by a coalition of Depraved-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans we should not be surprised to see yet another demonstration of the depravity and destructive power of the new rulers and those in government and the established media who willingly serve them.

And we will have no choice but to respond in kind.

The following article was electronically published on the LIBERNET Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I morally condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.
_
_

A Response To Falsehoods Of The Day

2009-04-16T16:18:00.000-07:00

With a tip of the hat to Glenn Reynolds I shall now quote the full text of short article from The Hill:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) blasted "tea party" protests yesterday, labeling the activities "despicable" and shameful."

"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.

"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

This is the strongest language to date opposing the protesters, which, according to some estimates, topped 250,000 across the country.

As usual one can tell that a Democrat is telling a lie by observing the movement of the lips. If the lips are moving (or the fingers are in contact with the keyboard) the Democrat is lying.

In the first place taking money from the more productive working people and giving it to those who don't make enough (if they work at all) to pay federal income taxes is not a tax cut. It's a bribe.

Furthermore, any attempt to increase the tax burden on corporations will only be shifted to the consumers of the goods and services sold by the corporations. In fact it is the poor, the people who have to spend their earnings right away, who bear the greatest burden of higher corporate taxes.

But there's more.

This Illinois Looter claims that the Federal Government under Die Grosse Null (The Big Zero) will somehow create millions of jobs. There is a word for that belief that I simply cannot use in polite discourse. Its a word for something usually found lying on the ground in pastures and feedlots.

The money to pay for those so-called jobs doesn't appear like loaves and fishes in a messianic miracle, it is money that is forcibly removed from real people working in the real economy that would otherwise pay for goods and services created by real workers. If the program ran at one-hundred percent efficiency, "creating" three and a half million positions in the Federal sector at the cost of three and half million jobs in the real economy, it would be wrong enough. But in reality the Federal Government has historically run at twenty-five percent efficiency, with one tax dollar in four actually reaching its intended destination. This means that for every position in the Federal apparatus that gets penciled in there will be four real workers will either lose their jobs or not be hired.

If enacted, the Obama program will result in the unemployment of about fourteen million real workers. Not only here in America, but also in other parts of the world where American taxpayers buy goods and services.

The Illinois Looter*, is also whining about how the raising of objections by the actual living and breathing citizens of our Republic is somehow detracting from the significance and honor of the actions of Die Grosse Null.

While the adoption of the Primacy of the Parasite as the fundamental moral and legal paradigm of our nation is significant. It is in no fashion honorable. In fact I am hard pressed to politely describe how utterly vile and loathsome I find the actions of President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the Washington establishment in general, are in bringing about this appalling state of our national affairs**.

The Illinois Looter, who would never utter a word about the corporate and financial interests who pay off her party for favors and protection or the validity of the voter rolls in Cook County, denounces as false the concerns and anger of the actual living and breathing citizens of the American Republic.

In fact the Tea Parties are not only protesting the depraved actions of Die Grosse Null and the Federal socialist apparatus, they are also denouncing the appalling level of appeasement that was practiced by the Republican Party under the polite label of "bipartisanship." They are protesting the peonization of America that is being brought about by both factions of the Washington Establishment.

The fact of the matter is that President Barack Obama, with his arrogance, ignorance of ethics, economics, and science, and his effectively unlimited desire for adulation and power, is the living and breathing embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and most of the Washington establishment in general.

What the Illinois Looter is in effect demanding from us actual living and breathing citizens is that we simply shut up and obey. Such behavior is typical of those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite. The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx's magic phrase*** is nothing more than an attempt to put a happy moral face on what is the literal description of a slave labor system.

To those who willfully embrace the parasite mode of existence, power over the productive members of a population is a moral necessity. This causes the parasites to invert their moral standards and deny to others the Right of Life. It causes them to demand silence and obedience from those truly good people who are condemned to servitude, and to unleash deadly violence upon those who rightfully refuse to comply.

If we are unsuccessful in blocking the machinations of Die Grosse Null and the bipartisan Washington establishment then our children and grandchildren will be loaded down with the burden of a national debt that they simply cannot bear. We should not be surprised to see our sons and daughters marching down a street chanting, "Hell no, we don't owe!"

Nor should we be surprised when the parasites of the Washington establishment respond with violence.

I already know how I'm going to respond to their actions. How are you going to respond?****

* There's another word that I shall refrain from using today to describe the character of this female. It is a word that I usually use in reference to the wife of Benedict Arnold, who I usually refer to as, "that Tory ****." It rhymes with runt.

** Don't even get me started on foreign and defense policies.

*** You know the one: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

**** If this rant doesn't put me on the big arrest list then some affirmative action diversity hire isn't doing her job.

What's Wrong With This Statement?

2009-03-22T19:23:00.000-07:00

The following piece was originally published March 9, 2004 on my primary blog:

From an interview with Comrade Kerry in Time magazine:

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

Ayn Rand once said that because dictatorships in general, and Soviet Union in particular, did not recognize and respect the rights of its subjects they could have no sovereign rights that would be recognized and respected by any free nation such as the United States. In her view, if I understood it correctly, the hunting season on dictatorships was always open.

But to those like John Kerry, who claim to be caring, compassionate, and progressive, it is somehow wrong to depose a despot who uses his political apparatus to subjugate, plunder, and murder his subjects. Kerry and his fellow party members claim to be “democrats” but are presently screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs when a tyrant is toppled and replaced with a democratic government that answers to the citizen body of that nation.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Even though they don’t care about the citizens of Iraq they do care about their own constituents, right?

Well I certainly don’t think so.

Remember the Strategic Defense Initiative? Kerry and his comrades in the Congress opposed it even though their party’s primary base of support lived in close proximity to the industrial, transportation and military sites that were targeted by the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Soviet Army. The logically and morally correct course of action for Kerry and his political comrades was to implement the full SDI program as soon as possible for the benefit of their constituents.

But they didn’t, did they?

In fact, not only did Kerry and fellow party members oppose SDI they also fought to stop other programs to upgrade the American armed forces. Many members of Kerry’s party, such as Ron Dellums of California, were also a party membership card short of being proper Communists and were reasonably expected to have welcomed the Soviet Army not as the band of barbarians that they historically were, but as “liberators of the proletariat,” etcetera, etcetera.

But at least Kerry and his party would put the money stripped from the defense budget to a compassionate use, right?

Oh really? Well I certainly don’t think so.

Establishing a common defense against barbarian states such as National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as those despotic states that still exist, is a moral necessity. Anyone who refused to financially contribute to the common defense was a parasite and deserved to be dealt with as such. (As to active opponents of national defense, apart from those creatures who sexually molest children, I think there is no one more depraved or despicable than a politically active pacifist. But that’s a rant for another time.)

But Kerry and his political comrades not only attempted to loot the defense budget but they sought to levy progressively higher taxes on the more productive citizens in order to buy the votes of less productive and the outright non-producers. (I could go on about the ongoing corruption of the electorate but I want to keep this rant short.) Those, like Kerry and his political comrades, who rob Peter in order to pay off Paul, can usually count on the votes of Paul. However, this also has the effect of reducing Peter and his fellow productive citizens to the political status of cattle. Hominid livestock who are compelled to live in an enforced state of poverty but are expected to work as hard as before in order to support an ever growing class of parasites.

An example of the parasites that Kerry and his political comrades are funding with the tax monies taken from productive and rational citizens are the social agencies that actively and punitively interfere with the efforts of those citizens who try to raise their own children to be rational and productive adults. And if this wasn’t injury enough, at the same time tax monies are also being used to create the equivalent of an ecological niche for an irrational and destructive underclass that preys upon each other and on their social and moral betters.

Kerry and his political comrades call this compassion.

Well, if this is compassion, then I’d rather be an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

But Kerry and his political comrades are using their legislative power to move society in a progressive direction, right?

No. Not only do I not think so, I truly believe that anyone who did think so would probably place a winning bid on a certain well-used suspension bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan Island on ebay.

An intelligent reader should have noticed by now that I do not use the term “democrat” to describe John Kerry and his political comrades. I do not believe that they deserve to be called such.

The Democratic Political Tradition in Western Civilization began in the ancient Polis of Athens. In Athens the citizen body, the adult male members of the founding tribes, not made the laws of the polis but were also armed and were expected to enforce the laws of the polis and defend it against external aggressors. In adopting a more inclusive definition of the concept of citizen we could say that the American Republic has made verifiable progress.

But to John Kerry and his political comrades, progress consists of disarming the citizen body, of denying the rights of free citizens, and instead treating those rights as state granted privileges while imposing increasing restrictions on the acts of speech, peaceful assembly, association, commerce, and worship. The political state toward which Kerry and his political comrades, in both the Congress and the Courts, are propelling America is a form of despotism similar to that found in Communist states such as Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam.

(And if you really want to have fun, try comparing the platform of Kerry’s party to the twenty-five point program of the National Socialist German Workers Party sans the aggressive military and race planks.)

Instead of being the party of democracy, Kerry and his political comrades are in fact the party of despotism. When they object to the overthrow of a foreign dictatorship, such as that of Saddam Hussein’s, they are simply showing that they care for and have compassion for their ideological kindred. If anything, the foundation of their political philosophy has not progressed beyond the moment when for the first time a wandering band of nomads came upon a community of farmers, and instead of learning to farm and settling down themselves, chose to subjugate the farmers and live off their labors.

Although the methods of predatory subjugation have improved over the millennia, John Kerry and his political comrades are in my view no more than stone age savages. They are hazards to us, our families, and our nation. And it's about time that they are dealt with as such.
_

Thought for the Day

2009-03-21T02:36:00.001-07:00

I get the distinct impression that Die Grosse Null (The Big Zero) has fouled up more times in his first two months in office than the average Republican president fouls up in two terms. What's worse, Die Grosse Null's errors tend to be those which should be easily avoidable.

Back during the 2000 presidential election, Steven Michael Barry, the editor and publisher of THE RESISTER told everyone to vote for Al Gore. The theory behind this "endorsement" was that he expected the Gore Administration to become so incompetent, corrupt, and just plain evil, that it would provoke a Pinochet-style coup d'etat and the commencement of a campaign to shut down the Left in general.

No, I didn't vote for Gore. But I have the horrible feeling that SMB may have made a valid prediction.

This isn't advocacy. I'm just waiting for the other combat boot to drop.
_

Old Stuff

2009-03-14T06:27:00.001-07:00

I'm posting links to old articles on my primary blog in no particular order.

You Too Can Be A Mass Murderer!

The Doctor Is In.

Rant For The Day (October 24, 2004)

Answering A Socialist Twit.

What Does The Left Want?

"Shouldn't You Be Frying Something?" (Seriously, our present Socialist rulers make the Irkans look competent.)

Loud and Rude Rant of the Day.

Define Insanity.

Someone Asked A Dumb Question.

Rant Of The Day (September 3, 2006)

Quote Of The Day (December 13, 2005)

Quote Of The Day (May 13, 2005)

This Is Sick

Thought For The Day (March 17, 2005)

Rant Of The Day (December 20, 2004)

_

Thought for the Day

2009-02-07T03:26:00.000-08:00

Journalism has become the practical equivalent of perjury carried out on a national scale.

Perjury in a capital murder case may lead to the wrongful execution of an innocent individual or the wrongful release of an actual murderer and the subsequent murder of additional victims.

The consequences of perjury in the field of national politics may require an accountant to keep track of the bodies.

Perhaps its time to revise the First Amendment.
_

Someone Else Is Reposting

2009-01-26T17:17:00.000-08:00

Tripwire by D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
_

Book Review: Unintended Consequences

2009-01-24T05:24:00.000-08:00

The following book review was originally published in the Spring 1996 issue of The Resister.

I purchased an additional copy for my friend, at the time, Doug Graen. Doug refused to read it citing some alleged adverse physiological effect. Mr Graen later got himself surgically mutilated and changed "her" name to Dana Wolfe. "Ms. Wolfe" supported and voted for Die Grosse Null on the grounds that the aforementioned Chicago Marxist will restore the true Constitution and Bill of Rights. I shouldn't have to say that the former Doug has serious problems with the concept of reality.

Unintended Consequences. John Ross. Accurate Press, 7188 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63143. ISBN 1-888188-04-0. Hardback. 863 pp. 1996. $28.95.

By now, almost everybody even peripherally connected with the so-called gun culture has at least heard about John Ross' novel Unintended Consequences. This novel chronicles the federal government's war on the gun culture, with an ultimate conclusion that has been called "uplifting" by some and "horrifying" by others. Make no mistake, this is one book that does not provoke halfhearted responses from those who read it.

One of the earliest reviewers, Dr. Edgar Suter of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research said it was "the most important work of fiction I have read in over a decade." Syndicated columnist Vin Suprynwicz terms it "a masterwork," and "the first modern novel of liberty since Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged." Aaron Zelman of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership agrees, but uses another comparison. "If civil war breaks out in present-day America, it will most likely be for the reasons Ross describes in this riveting thriller. What Harriet Beecher Stowe did in the 1850's to promote individual freedom John Ross has done for the current struggle for individual freedom in the 1990s."

In the opposite camp, some readers have been both shocked and mightily offended by the book's subject. One appeaser at NRA dismisses it as "that sick book." Others have accused Mr. Ross of attempting to incite violence with his plot. This is ludicrous, given that Ross is running for U.S. Congress as a pre-Roosevelt Democrat and is currently favored to win that party's Missouri primary in August. Nonetheless, one senator involved with the Ruby Ridge hearings has read Ross' book and remarked "I now get cold chills up my spine every time I walk out the front door of my house in the morning." Maybe he should.

We at The Resister are of the firm opinion that Unintended Consequences is required reading for anyone with any interest in this country's future, and we were pleased when Mr. Ross agreed to tell us why he wrote it. This book has created a firestorm of controversy, not because there is some violence in it (which we think is rather restrained), but because the plot is plausible, and based on existing facts and historic precedent. Ross has succeeded in writing that rarest of thrillers: a dynamic story with overwhelming national significance, yet one which requires no leap of faith or suspension of disbelief. We predict you will not be able to put it down.

-------------------------------------

The Author Speaks Out

Many people have speculated on why I wrote Unintended Consequences. Most of their theories are wrong. "Gun guys," as they are often called, comprise a distinct cultural group in America. This fact is uniformly ignored by almost everyone, despite the fact the gun culture now numbers in the millions.

In the 1920s, members of the gun culture sat in the cold on their bunks at Camp Perry, Oho, meticulously caring for the handmade Springfield .22 target rifles they would fire in competition the next day. When the President proudly announces that, today (seventy years later), he is ordering those same guns thrown into a blast furnace, we in the gun culture experience powerful emotions. They are the same emotions that a Native American would feel upon being told that the President was proudly ordering the destruction of war clubs and other valued tribal artifacts. They are the same emotions that Jews the world over felt while viewing footage of Sturmtroopen gleefully burning intricate copies of the Torah.

In addition to being a member of this culture, I have been politically involved in gun issues for many years. While giving lectures and presentations, I am constantly amazed by the number of people who are unaware of major historic events involving individual rights. The Government's treatment of the Bonus Marchers, the particulars of the Miller case, the Warsaw ghetto resistance in 1943, and other watershed events, are completely unknown to a startling number of Americans. Understanding this history is vitally important to our future.

The author of an entertaining thriller can reach an audience untouched by the average historian. Tom Clancy, and now others, have brought knowledge of military operations to millions of readers who previously had no familiarity or interest in this area. Now, millions of people have a basic understanding of our military hardware, and the decisions our leaders have to make before it is used.

In my generation no one, who I am aware of, has applied the technique of the blockbuster novel to the subject of individual liberty. It has definitely never been done from the viewpoint of the gun culture, and that is why I wrote the story that I did. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, written four decades ago (and reviewed in this publication's last issue), deals with the subject of liberty, but that author invented some assumptions which strained credulity in addition to violating the laws of physics. In writing my novel, I felt obligated to invent nothing which had not already happened in history. Several reviewers have mentioned this fact as one of the book's greatest strengths. It is also why the critics find it so terrifying.

Aaron Zelman at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has likened my book to Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, written in 1853. Although I was not consciously thinking of this work specifically when I wrote Unintended Consequences, the parallel is right on target.

In 1850, most northerners had no personal knowledge of slavery and could not understand what all the fuss was about. Slaves got three square meals a day and guaranteed housing in a climate where you could comfortably go barefoot in the middle of January. Slaves cost upwards of a thousand dollars each -- a tremendous sum 145 years ago. What businessman would abuse or damage such a valuable investment? To someone in Chicago or New York, who had to feed and support himself in the middle of winter, speech-making abolitionists were a bunch of eccentrics who needed to get a life.

That attitude changed almost overnight with Stowe's phenomenally successful novel. The real-life horrors of slavery were shown to appalled Americans with a power that no soap-box orator could hope to match, and Uncle Tom's Cabin soon became the largest-selling work of fiction ever produced in America.

History is repeating itself. Today, Americans who don't own guns cannot fathom what all the fuss is about. They can't understand what the big deal is about magazine capacity, or muzzle threads, or a few day's wait. These people need to be shown, in the clearest possible terms, that our government is shooting nursing mothers in the head and fourteen-year-old boys in the back because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. Our government is burning citizens alive over suspected $200 tax disputes, and throwing people in prison over one-dollar bottle couplings.

The gun culture has been under ever-increasing assault for six decades. Honest, successful, talented, productive, motivated people are being stripped of their freedom and dignity. The conflict has been building for over half a century, and the warning flags are frantically waving while the instigators rush towards the abyss, and their doom.

If Unintended Consequences can bring about a fraction of the enlightenment that Harriet Beecher Stowe's work accomplished more than a century ago, I will consider it an overwhelming success.

_

Motivation for the Day

2009-01-17T16:40:00.001-08:00

An alternative if you're into Latin should be:

"ULTIMA RATIO CIVITUM"

If you think I got that wrong just drop a comment here.
_

Horiuchi and FBI HRT "Snipers" Take the 5th

2008-12-19T17:21:00.000-08:00

The following short article was originally published in the Fall 1995 (Volume II, Number 2) issue of THE RESISTER.

Horiuchi and FBI HRT "Snipers" Take the 5th

Lon Horiuchi, member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), alleged "Quarter Club" sniper in said unit, and world renowned woman killer, exercised his Constitutional right against self incrimination on 06 September, 1995, during closed testimony in the congressional hearings on the Weaver case. While speculation surrounding his refusal to testify centers around who gave what order when, the real reason does not rest on his ability to follow orders. His ability to do so has already been demonstrated. Indeed, as we reported in our Vol.II, No.1 issue, he told one of our observers that he "jumped on it" when the rules of engagement changed, and that he has no remorse about killing Vicki Weaver.

The real reason he refused to testify rests on his professional competence as a "sniper." He actually used the techniques taught to him by the USMC Scout Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, VA, and relied upon the mil dot fraud in conjunction with moving target training taught there (and everywhere else in the military), with the inevitable and logical consequences.

While everyone is blaming Horiuchi for deliberately shooting Vicki Weaver, the facts, given his training, are less dramatic. But the facts are a telling indictment against the competence of military instructors, both in respect to their craft, and their competence to train law enforcement.

In military sniper schools moving target engagement is taught using the mil-dot ambush method. This involves placing the crosshair on an aiming point a certain distance in front of the target, and guessing the time to shoot as the target moves along your mil-dot reticule. This parlor trick works fine in a school environment on a known distance range when the target is moving according to a rigidly enforced pace and the sniper student gets a number of "sighters" sufficient to refine his guess at what point to shoot. This allows the student "dope" the target-speed-of-the-day. When the target speed is thus known, the hit probability is about 85 percent at 200 yards against a walking body-width "E" silhouette target. In the real world, against human targets moving at random speeds, the hit probability against a running target at 200 yards is less than 15 percent.

This is how Mrs. Weaver got shot. Randy Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, was running for the cabin. Horiuchi put his crosshair on the cabin door and concentrated on watching Mr. Harris run along the horizontal wire of his mil- dot reticule. When Horiuchi guessed Mr. Harris was at the "ambush point" he shot. The bullet went exactly where it was aimed--the door, where Mrs. Weaver was standing.

On 20 September, 1995, other FBI HRT snipers also took the 5th in testimony before the Senate hearings. An SFU observer who has trained with HRT snipers put their refusal to testify in clear perspective. "The bottom line is that they are punks," he said. "They are bad-asses on a known distance range when they are shooting at quarters--after about 10 sighting shots to get their zero 'refined.' But operationally they are losers."

Any law enforcement sniper who shoots at a moving target should reflect upon his lack of judgment in a prison cell. His cell mates should be the legally incompetent military instructors who taught him that a school house parlor trick was applicable in an operational setting.

An Answer

2008-12-15T06:36:00.000-08:00

The following was originally published on my primary blog, Living In The Surreal World, two years ago. With the oncoming anointment of our new Stone-Age God-King it remains relevant today.

Someone Asked A Dumb Question

Some piece of Leftist trash is whining:

Is there any way to ban Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk from the airwaves?

This question touches on the first amendment freedom of speech. But what about speech that provides only hatred, propaganda and divisiveness?

The piece of Leftist trash quoted by P.J. Comix is simply being stupid as usual.

As Ayn Rand used to say, a gun is not a substitute for an argument.

Once force is openly used against those who speak out against the Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against the Left. Once the Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.

Or to put it another way to the Left, break the rules of civil society and you will have left us no choice but to break you.

It's called a civil war. And cars with bumper stickers, tee-shirts, and other examples of open posturing will make target identification very easy.

What part of "Liberty or Death" do they persist in not understanding?

It is generally considered to be bad form to advocate violence against someone simply because of their political views. But if some Leftist thug finds himself staring at the muzzle of my favorite rifle it is because the stupid individual put himself there.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny

2008-12-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

This editorial was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume I, Number 3) of THE RESISTER.

This editorial explains why I and a number of other rational citizens of the American Republic will not quietly submit to the whims of the newly anointed God-King foisted upon us by the mob of Depraved-Americans, Corrupt-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans.

EDITORIALS
----------

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny

Rights are a moral principle, and each man has inalienable rights over himself, his faculties and his possessions. This moral principle, this objective reality, means that a man has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and therefore his own labor. Furthermore, a man has a right to the productive use of his labor and faculties. Because a man has these rights he must respect these rights in all others. Since each man is sovereign over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.

In a rational society founded of the moral principle of rights there can be no force or fraud in the relationship between sovereign individuals. When rights are properly exercised they take nothing from anyone, nor do they compel anyone to act in a manner detrimental to their own self-interest. Notice that the rational exercise of each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by an individual takes nothing from, or compels, other individuals in their rational exercise of these rights.

Only individuals possess rights. Groups, being nothing more than a number of individuals can, in themselves, possess no rights other than those which are possessed and exercised individually by each member. Hence, a faction has no rights; nor does a gang, a mob, a tribe, a state or a nation. A group may hove interests but those interests do not assume the moral legitimacy of rights. To assert otherwise is to descend into abstract subjectivism, an evasion of reality, where a society is ruled by the-range-of-the-moment whims of its members, the majority gang of the moment, the current demagogue or dictator.

Government is force. No matter how benign or dictatorial, behind every law or regulation or act there is a gun. The authors of the United States Constitution were fully aware of this fact. They recognized that government in a rational society must derive its delegated powers by the consent of the governed and that these powers must be specifically defined by law--the Constitution; delimited by a law higher than government--the inalienable rights of man; and dispersed by permanent separation of powers. For these reasons they specifically and intentionally REJECTED democracy as a system of government. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers, men devoted to the primacy of the source of all rights, man's faculties (which means; reason), was the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Democracy is the antithesis of the natural rights of man. The philosophical premise of democracy is egalitarianism; not political egalitarianism which holds all men equal before the law (justice), but METAPHYSICAL egalitarianism, the belief that all men are equal in all things. This last construct is such an obvious falsehood that it can carry only one meaning: the hatred of reason. Democracy, by its very definition - rule by majority - is the notion that" might makes right." The exercise of democracy reduces men to mere numbers, and the faction or gang which gathers the greater number of men to its fleeting cause wields the government gun against the minority.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will in almost every case, be felt by the majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

--Publius (James Madison), The Federalist X, 1787

Indeed, specific safeguards were designed into the Constitution to prevent the subversion of the constitutional republic and the natural rights of man by political party gang warfare and special interest factionalism inherent in a democracy: the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1) and the election of senators by State Legislatures (Article I, Section 3).

In the case of the former it was specifically intended that the head of the Executive branch of the federal government be elected by Electors chosen by each state legislature in equal proportion to its representation in Congress; NOT by popular vote. This ensured : "No faction or combination can bring about the election. It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity. In all human probability, no better method of election could have been devised." (James Iredell, North Carolina Ratification Cttee., 1788)

The latter provision ensured the logical effect of popular election of members to the House of Representatives (whim based legislation) was offset by representatives elected by state legislature to the Senate to guard against Executive and House encroachment on state sovereignty: "The election of one branch of the Federal, by the State Legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one-third, will lesson the faculty of combination and may put a stop to intrigues." (James Madison, Virginia Ratification Cttee., June, 1788)

The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President. This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto-communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man.

The irrationality of democracy was stated most eloquently by Auberon Herbert in his London address on March 9, 1880, before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, entitled; CHOICES BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROTECTION: "How should it happen that the individual should be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited rights?"

--Alexander Davidson

_

Open Letter to Our Readers

2008-12-07T01:49:00.000-08:00

The following open letter was originally published in the Fall 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume II, Number 2.

Open Letter to Our Readers

--------------------------

Capitalists Armed!

Since it was introduced in June 1994, The RESISTER has become one of the most popular antifederalist publications in the United States. This is remarkable because it is a clandestine publication produced by United States Army Special Forces soldiers. The RESISTER is the psychological warfare organ of the Special Forces Underground. SFU is an association of Special Forces soldiers who know that taking no action against this nation's unchecked decent into socialism and totalitarianism is the very antithesis of their responsibility to defend the Constitution "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and to "...bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

The Army Chain of Command's response to The RESISTER is a frightening indicator of the political course this nation is following. It has been smeared by communists as an "extremist" publication, without of course the term "extremism" ever being defined. (They mean it is anti-communist.) It has been reviled by racists as a "supremacist" publication, without of course the term "supremacist" ever being defined. (They mean it is anti-multiculturalist.) It has been officially banned from military libraries and bases, despite regulations that explicitly protect it from such arbitrary actions, and rulings by MACOM Judge Advocates General and Inspectors General that The RESISTER is legal. Its authors, observers, and associates have been hunted and threatened with expulsion from the military if caught. Mere possession of The RESISTER by military personnel carries the implied threat of punitive punishment, and vocal support of The RESISTER and its policies has been punished by the arbitrary use of force by fraud.

This official response is singularly unsettling considering the official policy statement of the Special Forces Underground:

"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, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order," in short, the ideologies of all tyrannies."

Consider the logical implications of the official response to The RESISTER when juxtaposed to the above stated philosophy of the Special Forces Underground.

The Special Forces Underground and The RESISTER are the only pro-constitutional, pro-capitalist, pro-isolationist voice in the United States military. We will never compromise with communists, socialists or totalitarians on any issue. This begs the question, "What principles do you want the United States Army to stand for?"

Would you prefer an Army of patriots willing to fight to preserve the unalienable rights of individuals, or an Army of politically correct sycophants driven by the range-of-the-moment whims of whatever mob gains momentary ascendancy?

Would you prefer an Army devoted to defending the original, strictly defined, constitutional limits on government power, or an Army of toadies serving whatever political gang decides the Constitution is a "living document" they can manipulate at will?

Would you prefer an Army dedicated to the defense of a sovereign America against foreign aggression, and devoted to its legitimate sovereign interests, or an Army subordinate to a United Nations founded by communists, run by communists, and dedicated to one-world communism?

Would you prefer an Army that unflinchingly defends capitalism, the guarantor of true liberty, or an Army of socialist serfs?

Would you prefer an Army subordinate to civilian control in a constitutional republic, or an Army subject to the dictates of the latest totalitarian darling of competing gangs of democracy worshipping collectivists fighting over the ruins of capitalism for their "fair share" of the loot?

Would you prefer an Army in which advancement and promotion was based solely on individual merit, or an Army dedicated to tribal balkanization and the racist policy of so-called affirmative action?

The Special Forces Underground has made it clear that we stand for the former conditions in the above questions without exception or compromise. We reject all socialist premises. The opposition, by their words and deeds, clearly advocates the later conditions. Their official pronouncement that they find The RESISTER "objectionable" speaks volumes about where their true loyalties lay. The opposition's fear of The RESISTER is the unspoken fear of all tyrannies: independent thought.

Since its inception, Special Forces Underground has been slowly gathering together the few remaining true patriots in the United States military; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who will not compromise on the principles of individual rights, strict constitutionalism, limited government (unalterably divided by separation of its legislative, judicial and executive powers), isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, and constitutional republicanism. Given the climate of fear perpetuated by the socialist opposition this is no easy task.

The RESISTER is the psychological warfare voice of the Special Forces Underground. The purposes of The RESISTER are to 1) educate the U.S. military about the true meaning and intent of the Constitution they took an oath to defend, 2) expose the Marxists, internationalists, and statists in the U.S. military and shine a light on their activities, and 3) coalesce the capitalist resistance against communism and socialism.

Special Forces Underground raises funds to continue our fight against socialism by subscriptions to The RESISTER, through its subsidiary, the Militia Free Press, and by the voluntary donations of sympathizers and supporters. In other words, our fund raising is unashamedly capitalistic. If you truly desire to live as a free man (a condition possible only under capitalism) we ask for your voluntary support to help us educate the U.S. military about their constitutional responsibilities, and educate the militia--the armed citizenry--how to resist tyranny and the unspeakable evils of socialism, in all their guises.

Life, Liberty, Property

J.F.A. Davidson

_

Assault on Waco, My Editorial Introduction

2008-12-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

A bit over fifteen years ago a small community in Texas was attacked by two packs of predatory animals.

The first pack was a federal agency whose functions were in part a deliberate and explicit violation of the charter and supreme law under which the Federal Government was established.

Even under regulations in effect at the time, the BATF could have sent a couple of agents in coats and ties in a plain government issue sedan to the Branch Davidian residence and asked the federally licenced firearms dealer living there to open his place of business and records to examination. Or if they needed to place the leader of the congregation under arrest they could have taken him into custody while he was out on his morning run. Given Mr. Koresh’s past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.

The BATF did none of the above.

Instead the BATF attempted to stage a military-style assault, code-named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the socialist filth that had just moved into the White House. Never mind all the innocent women and children who could have been maimed or killed during the raid.

After the BATF goons were driven off another pack of predators, the so-called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians.

If it had been necessary to take the Branch Davidian residence by force a trainee platoon from the Benning School for Boys could, in accordance to their training, have entered the building and taken down any armed individuals without deliberately harming the non-combatants. Instead, the HRT, the alleged experts in hostage rescue, proceeded to terrorize the people within the residence. And when the Branch Davidians refused to surrender, they were exterminated by the HRT.

The HRT used some armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the ambient wind to blow through the structure while other armored vehicles injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.

And then the HRT fired incendiary devices into the building.

While the Branch Davidian residence burned to the ground on live television, HRT gunmen stationed behind the building out of sight of the TV cameras shot anyone who attempted to escape the fire from the rear of the building.

The Democrat majority in both houses of Congress were not the slightest bit appalled by the atrocity, instead of condemning the president for his actions and initiating the process of impeaching and removing President Clinton, they chose instead to condemn the victims and those who dared to speak up for them.

Given the choice of obeying the supreme law or violating the law, they chose to violate the law.

Given the choice of preserving innocent life or destroying it, they chose to destroy innocent life.

President Clinton and the Democratic Party could have obeyed the Constitution, the Supreme Law to which the President, the Congress, and the Federal Government in general were subject and stopped the terrorization and murder of the Branch Davidians, but instead chose to violate the Supreme Law.

And like a number of illiterate barbarian chieftains before him, President Clinton and his party used the murder of the Branch Davidians to demonstrate to the rest of us what would happen to anyone who refused to submit to their will. Instead of standing up for the rights and lives of Americans they chose instead to terrorize and murder Americans.

Since then the name “democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept “murderer.” If there is one complaint I have about President Bush it is that he has done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

Thank you Mr. President, for nothing.

Now that the Party of Death has been given control of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government by a coalition of Depraved-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans we should not be surprised to see yet another demonstration of the depravity and destructive power of the new rulers and those who willingly serve them.

And we will have no choice but to respond in kind.

The following article was electronically published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.
_
_

Assault on Waco, Introduction and Part 1

2008-12-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:05:44 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, foreword
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

I thought the people on libernet might be interested in the following article I wrote. For this article I only used a small fraction of the information I have gathered -- with slight exceptions, it only covers events up to and including the assault -- and I will not have the time to write up the rest any time soon. If anyone out there is willing to *commit* to writing it up, I am willing to send them the information I have collected, which includes

- 200 pages of newspaper and magazine articles;

- nearly 50 ascii files containing newspaper articles, commentary, and documents relevant to the Waco Massacre; and

- notes on all of the above, which have been organized by topic (some notes appearing in several topics), giving page numbers (or document numbers) for each note.

[The article itself follows in a series of separate postings. It is about 12-1/2 pages long.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn | It is the means that determine the ends.
kevin@bert.cs.byu.edu |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:07:53 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 1
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

[Author's note: permission is granted for unlimited reproduction of the following article, which appears in the January/February issue of _The American_.]

Assault on Waco
by Kevin S. Van Horn

On January 10 the trials of those few Branch Davidians who survived the Waco Massacre begin. With their home, the Mt. Carmel complex, in ruins, and families and friends dead, they remain stigmatized by the government and press as dangerous, lunatic "cultists." This article is an attempt to counter the defamation they have suffered and publicize the crimes committed against them by the government. Given the limited space available, I have chosen to trade breadth for depth; thus this article will consider only the accusations made against the Davidians, the events leading up to the ATF assault on their home, and the assault itself.

Who Were the Branch Davidians?

Immediately after the ATF assault on Mount Carmel the Federal Government began a campaign of vilification against the Branch Davidians. They were repeatedly portrayed in the press as dangerous, insane, bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet this supposedly sociopathic sect had lived peacefully in and near Waco for over half a century. Let's see what their neighbors have to say about the Davidians.

Collective Impressions

According to the Houston Post, Gene Chapman, owner of Chapman's Fruit Market, has nothing but kind words for the Davidians. "They're just all nice, decent, normal people," he said. "Well, not normal." [30]

A.L. Dreyer, an 80-yr-old farmer, owns a ranch adjoining the Mt. Carmel property. "I've never had no trouble with them people," he said. "I've always said if they stay on their side of the fence, I'll stay on mine... I have no fear of those people." [31]

The ATF's "storm trooper tactics" were "a vulgar display of power on the part of the feds," said former Waco District Attorney Vic Feazell. Feazell unsuccesfully prosecuted seven Branch Davidians in 1988. "We treated them like human beings, rather than storm-trooping the place," he told the Houston Chronicle. "They were extremely polite... They're protective of what's theirs..." [12]

"[T]hey were basically good people," said McLennan County Sheriff Jack Harwell. "All of 'em were good people." [59]

Koresh

Henry McMahon, a former Waco resident and gun store owner, described David Koresh as a likable guy. "There was nothing out of the ordinary (about Koresh's personality)," McMahon said, adding that Koresh was "an average Joe." [41,43]

"He (Koresh) is a very gentle man," said a Waco doctor who had treated Koresh for three years prior to the ATF assault. "He is very intelligent and articulate. They made him sound like a ruthless killer and that's just absurd." [18]

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, said he believed Koresh wouldn't hurt anyone unless he was bothered by outsiders. "It's sort of like a rattlesnake. Unless you step on him, he's not going to hurt anybody." [23]

Steve Schneider

Steve Schneider emerged as a chief negotiator during the standoff, and was considered Koresh's lieutenant. FBI Special Agent Bob Ricks called Schneider "a cool, calm, deliberate individual." Cult Awareness Network `deprogrammer' Rick Ross described Schneider as well-educated, and said he was "a man with a history of deep religious conviction, honesty and integrity." [32]

Wayne Martin

Douglas Wayne Martin held a position of major responsibility among the Davidians; only he and Steve Schneider ever spoke face-to-face with federal negotiators during the siege. Martin was a 42-year-old black lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law School. For seven years he was an assistant professor at the North Carolina Central University School of Law. After moving to Waco he maintained a law practice near Mount Carmel. He had a wife and seven children. [38,42]

Martin was viewed by many who knew him as a quiet, jovial and religious person [38]. He was routinely described as professional and competent in court [34].

"People may tend to dismiss this event as just a bunch of religious fanatics, but having known Doug humanizes it for me," said Mark Morris, a law professor at NCCU. "He was a very bright, smart, able, kind person, and it's a real shock (Martin's death)."

"He left about a year after I got here, but he seemed to be a very nice and personable guy," Associate Law School Dean Irving Joyner said [38].

McLennan County Commissioner Lester Gibson said he and others who knew Martin found it hard to believe he could have been involved in anything so violent. "He was very friendly and quiet," said Gibson. "It was common knowledge that he was a Davidian, but he never talked religion." [34]

Gary Coker, a Waco lawyer, described Martin as a kind man and a particularly devoted father.

Waco city council member Lawrence Johnson had known Martin for five years at the time of the assault. He described Martin as a computer whiz and as a diligent lawyer. "I enjoyed working with him. He was smart, he was well-educated," Johnson said.

After the raid, Martin, still the conscientious lawyer, managed to send Johnson money to reimburse clients he was unable to represent while he was holed up in the compound. "That was his sense of responsibility coming out." [42]

Perry Jones

Perry Jones was Koresh's father-in-law. News reports described him as a polite older man, bespectacled and somewhat frail, and well known at various businesses in the Waco community. Jones was once called "the kindest man and a perfect gentleman." "He was nice and he had good manners," said Tim Jander, general manager of Star Tex Propane in Waco.

Jones died a slow and painful death after ATF agents shot him in the abdomen. [49]

Unsurprisingly, the feds decided that they did not want to hold the trials of the surviving Branch Davidians in Waco. Instead they got a change of venue to San Antonio, nearly 200 miles away, where the jury members would be unlikely to have independent knowledge of the Davidians' character.

------------------------------

Part Two.

_

Assault on Waco, Part 2

2008-12-02T11:19:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:09:11 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 2
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Roden Gunfight

One incident which the government and press used to paint the Branch Davidians as dangerous and violent was the gunfight with George Roden that took place at Mt. Carmel in 1988. But it was George Roden who was dangerous, violent, murderous and insane.

In 1984 a dispute arose between George Roden and David Koresh over leadership of the Davidians. This culminated in Roden forcing Koresh and his followers off of the Mt. Carmel property at gunpoint [21]. Koresh led his group to the city of Palestine, Texas [26].

By late 1987 things were faring badly for George Roden. He had almost no money, few followers, mounting debts and an angry Texas Supreme Court Justice on his trail [70]. So Roden decided to conclusively settle the leadership dispute with Koresh. He went to a graveyard and dug up the body of a man who had been dead 25 years, put the casket in the Mt. Carmel chapel, and said that whoever could raise this man from the dead was the one to lead the Davidians.

Koresh reported the action to the Sheriff's Department. He was told that his word alone wasn't enough -- proof was needed. So on November 3, 1987, Koresh and several men went out to Mt. Carmel to take pictures of the body in the casket. The Sheriff had warned them to be careful, because Roden was dangerous, so they armed themselves. The plan was to open the casket, take the pictures, and leave, but Roden caught them, and a gunfight ensued in which Roden was wounded [64].

Koresh and seven other Davidians were charged with attempted murder [20]. Jack Harwell, McLennan County Sheriff, called Koresh on the phone and informed him of the charges. He asked Koresh and the others to turn themselves in, and to surrender their weapons. When deputies arrived at Mount Carmel, Koresh and the other Davidians peacefully complied [64]. Officials traced the weapons and found that each was legally purchased [22].

On March 21, 1988, Roden was served with a citation for contempt of court. U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. sentenced him to six months in jail for continuing to file expletive-filled motions threatening the justices with AIDS and herpes, despite orders to cease and desist [70,65,30].

On April 25, Koresh's seven followers were acquitted, and the jury hung 9-3 in favor of Koresh's acquittal. The state then dropped the charges against him [68,20].

Koresh paid up 16 years of delinquent taxes on the Mount Carmel property, which allowed him and his followers to move in [68]. Upon returning to the property they found a methamphetamine lab and large piles of pornographic material. They burned the pornography and reported the meth lab to the DA's office [64].

Fifteen months after Koresh's trial, in the summer of 1989, Roden was approached by a man who claimed to be the Messiah. Roden split the man's head open with an ax [67]. Odessa police charged Roden with murder. The following year he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a state mental hospital [10], where he remains to this day [26].

Allegations of Child Abuse

Another tactic the federal government used to demonize the Davidians was to accuse them of child abuse. These accusations originally arose from Marc Breault, a former follower of Koresh who had a bitter falling out with him. Breault quit the sect at the end of 1989 and moved to Australia. He then threw himself into a campaign to discredit his former mentor, in the process leading away most of the Australian members of the sect.

In March 1990 Breault, his wife and a number of his Australian followers swore out more than 30 pages of affidavits claiming that Koresh was abusing children. A second set of affidavits was sworn out for use in a child custody hearing in early 1992, in which a Michigan man named David Jewell petitioned to gain custody of his daughter, then living at Mt. Carmel with Jewell's ex-wife. However, the allegations were mostly general and lacking in detail [48].

Thus the allegations of child abuse sprung from two sources: (1) a man who hated Koresh and was obsessed with discrediting him; and (2) a child-custody dispute. Note that allegations of child abuse are a common tactic in child-custody disputes.

As a result of Breault's efforts, local authorities began an investigation of the child abuse charges. Officials of the Child Protective Services division of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, and the McLennan County sheriff's office, visited Mt. Carmel in February and March 1992. They found no evidence of child abuse [46].

On April 23, 1993, in response to the Clinton administration's continued claims of child abuse, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services offered the following summary of its nine-week investigation: "None of the allegations could be verified. The children denied being abused in any way by any adults in the compound. They denied any knowledge of other children being abused. The adults consistently denied participation in or knowledge of any abuse to children. Examinations of the children produced no indication of current or previous injuries." Texas child protection officials also said they received no further abuse allegations after that time [48].

Breault had also contacted the FBI, accusing Koresh of a number of other crimes besides child abuse. A February 23, 1993 FBI memo, obtained by the Dallas Morning News, stated that no information had been developed to verify the allegations of "child abuse and neglect, tax evasion, slavery and reports of possible mass destruction."

The Clinton administration alleged that the Davidians were abusing children during the siege of Mt. Carmel. This was contradicted by those who actually saw the children. During the siege a man named Louis Alaniz managed to sneak past federal officials to visit the Davidians (he was not a Davidian himself). After leaving, he reported that the children at Mt. Carmel appeared happy, playing and laughing continuously, and that there were no outward signs of child abuse [44].

Sheriff Jack Harwell, who was the only outside negotiator brought into the Mount Carmel siege, said there was never any proof that children were being abused inside the compound. None of the children who were released from the compound, Harwell said, showed any signs of physical abuse [45].

According to Texas child protective services officials, none of the 21 children released to the authorities showed signs of abuse, and none of them confirmed that any abuse was committed. The children were physically and psychologically examined [45, 47]. Dr. Bruce Perry, the head of the team treating the children, stated flatly: "(N)one of the 21 children had been sexually abused or molested." [69]

After the blaze that killed most of the Davidians, the Clinton administration stepped up its "child abuse" offensive. White House communications director George Stephanopoulos claimed that "there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco compound." [39] But this claim was contradicted by others within the federal government itself.

FBI director William Sessions said his agency had "no contemporaneous evidence" of child abuse in the compound during the siege [48]. "[T]here had been no recent reports of the beating of children." In response to Janet Reno's claim of reports that "babies were being beaten," Sessions said, "I do not know what the attorney general was referring to specifically." [37]

The Justice Department itself put the lie to Clinton's and Reno's wild accusations. In a report released in early October, the Justice Department said there was no evidence of child abuse at the compound during the siege or even enough evidence to arrest Koresh on such charges before the February 28 raid [5].

------------------------------

Part Three.

_

Assault on Waco, Part 3

2008-12-02T11:10:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:10:26 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 3
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Gun Arsenal

The press and the federal government made much of the Davidians' collection of guns. President Clinton claimed the Davidians had "illegally stockpiled weaponry and ammunition." [1] But there is no law limiting the number of legal weapons one may accumulate. Furthermore, by Texas standards the Davidians' gun collection was
rather small. After the siege investigators found only 200 firearms in the ruins of Mt. Carmel [57], which amounts to about two guns per adult. But Texas' 17 million residents own a total of 68 million guns, for an average of four guns apiece, while 16,600 Texans legally own machine guns [33].

The government also claimed that the Davidians were planning an assault on Waco. This claim was based on third-hand information related to ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera, who filed the affidavit for the original raid on Mt. Carmel. Aguilera had interviewed ATF Special Agent Carlos Torres, who had interviewed Joyce Sparks, an investigator with the Texas Department of Human Services. According to Aguilera's affidavit, Torres told Aguilera that Sparks had told him that Koresh had told her "that he was the `Messenger' from God, that the world was coming to an end, and that when he `reveals' himself the riots in Los Angeles would pale in comparison to what was going to happen in Waco, Texas." Furthermore, this self-revelation "would be a `military type operation' and... all the `non-believers' would have to suffer." Koresh supposedly said this on Sparks' second and final visit to Mt. Carmel to investigate child-abuse charges, on April 6, 1992 [63]. But the LA riots broke out on April 29, more than three weeks after Sparks last visited Koresh!

Enter the ATF

In Feb. 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a report that the ATF had "disregarded rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Illegal ATF actions included entrapment and secret lawmaking via unpublished administrative interpretations of gun laws. The report noted that "expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." In the wake of the report, plans to abolish the agency were shelved after neither the U.S. Customs Bureau nor the Secret Service would accept the transfer of the discredited ATF agents into their organizations [3].

The ATF acted true to form in its investigation of the Davidians -- the purpose of the raid appears to have been to bolster the ATF's image, rather than any protection of the public safety. From Aguilera's affidavit it appears that the ATF collected no reliable new information for its investigation after June 23, 1992. But in mid-November "60 Minutes" began contacting ATF personnel about allegations of sexual harrassment in the agency [61]. In early December the investigation picked up again, after a lapse of 5-1/2 months [62].

On January 12, 1993 the segment aired. It presented allegations by female ATF agents that they had been sexually harrassed on the job and that the agency intimidated victims and witnesses who had pressed sexual harrassment claims. Among the charges was one of near-rape: agent Michelle Roberts charged that another agent had pinned her against the hood of a car while two others tore at her clothes. ATF agent Bob Hoffman told "60 Minutes" that he had verified the complaints of one female agent, and said, "In my career with ATF, the people that I put in jail have more honor than the top administration in this organization." Shortly afterwards, there was also a front-page article in the The Washington Post about racial discrimination in the ATF.

The "60 Minutes" story devastated both the public image and morale of the ATF. ATF Director Stephen Higgins must have been in a panic. A Republican appointee, he stood a good chance of losing his job with a Democratic administration coming in. Even if he didn't, he was going to have a rough time at the congressional budget hearings coming up on March 10. Said one high-level former ATF senior official who requested anonymity, "The show had great repercussions within the bureau... [S]ome [within the ATF] concluded that he [Higgins] was... looking for a high-profile case to counteract the negative image and enable him to go to the budget appropriations hearings with a strong hand." [52]

This analysis was supported by a followup "60 Minutes" report on May 23. Based on statements from ATF agents, Mike Wallace concluded the report by saying, "Waco was a publicity stunt, which was intended to improve the ATF's tarnished image." Consistent with this interpretation, the ATF notified the media before the raid [50,56,35], and there were a large number of television and newspaper reporters at the site on the morning of the raid [50].

Appendix G of the Treasury Department report on Waco suggests another, more disturbing motive for the raid. The appendix, entitled "A Brief History of Federal Firearms Enforcement," contains the following statement:

In a larger sense, however, the raid fit within an historic, well-established and well-defended government interest in prohibiting and breaking up all organized groups that sought to arm or fortify themselves... From its earliest formation, the federal government has actively suppressed any effort by
disgruntled or rebellious citizens to coalesce into an armed group, however small the group, petty its complaint, or grandiose its ambition.

In other words: regardless of whether you break any law, if some federal official doesn't like your politics and thinks you have too many weapons, you will be exterminated.

_

Part Four.

_

Assault on Waco, Part 4

2008-12-02T11:00:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:11:51 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 4
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

Serving the Warrant

On February 25 ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera filed for and received a warrant to search the premises of Mt. Carmel, claiming evidence of illegal conversion of (legal) semiautomic weapons to automatic. Contrary to early ATF claims, there was no arrest warrant for Koresh. The affidavit supporting the warrant was seriously flawed, containing many inaccuracies and patently false statements (such as the "LA riots" quote). According to several legal experts, including a former ATF senior enforcement official with more than 20 years' federal firearms experience, it is questionable that the affidavit demostrated probable cause for a search 51,58].

Steve Holbrook, an attorney in Washington, D.C. area, whose law practice specializes in gun-related offenses, was unequivocal: "Probable cause did not exist. There was evidence cited of a large quantity of legal firearms and parts, including interchangeable parts... Nowhere in the affidavit is it said all necessary parts and materials to convert semiautomatic weapons into machine guns were obtained [by Koresh]." [51]

The claimed violation itself is a tricky area of the law. "This is a very, very convoluted, technical, angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin kind of argument," says Robert Sanders, former enforcement chief of the ATF. "And there are no published rulings telling you what is and isn't [a violation]." [62]

Importantly, this was not a no-knock search warrant, in which agents may knock down doors and burst in heavily armed without prior warning to occupants; such warrants must be specifically applied for, which the ATF failed to do [53]. Nor was a no-knock approach necessary. As we have seen, Koresh and his followers had peacefully cooperated with law enforcement officers on at least three occasions in the past (once after the Roden gunfight, twice during the child-abuse investigation). And in July 1992 Koresh had actually invited ATF investigators to come out to Mt. Carmel and inspect the Davidians' guns [4,6,55], but he was angrily told "we don't want to do it that way." [6]

Furthermore, the ATF knew that nearly all the guns at Mt. Carmel were locked up and only Koresh had a key [63]. To avoid any possibility of armed resistance from the Davidians, they could have simply detained Koresh during one of his frequent excursions outside of Mt. Carmel [18,29] and had him unlock the store of guns in their presence.

Absent a no-knock warrant, U.S. law (Title 18, U.S.C. 3109) states that an officer must give notice of his legal authority and purpose before attempting to enter the premises to be searched. Only if admittance is refused after giving such notice is it legal for an officer to use force to gain entry. Said one former senior ATF official, "Irrespective of the situation inside, the notice of authority and purpose must be given... Unless the occupants of a dwelling are made aware that the persons attempting to enter have legal authority and a legal warrant to enter, the occupants have every right to defend themselves..." [54]

Dick DeGuerin, a well-known Houston lawyer, put it more bluntly: "...if a warrant is being unlawfully executed by the use of excessive force, you or I or anybody else has a right to resist that unlawful force. If someone's trying to kill you, even under the excuse that they have a warrant, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force, and to kill that person." [4]

It appears that the ATF never intended to serve the warrant in a lawful manner. ATF agents told the Houston Post that before the raid they had practiced to where it took 7 seconds to get out of their tarp-covered cattle trailers and 12 seconds to get to the front door. It is absurd to imagine that after such a mad dash to the door, the ATF agents intended to stop, knock, calmly state their legal authority and purpose, demand entry, and wait for a response, all before taking further action.

So how did the ATF serve its warrant? On Sunday morning, February 28, 1993, 100 federal agents arrived at Mt. Carmel in cattle cars and helicopters. About 30 agents dressed in black commando uniforms and armed with machine guns stormed the complex [9,19]. According to an Associated Press report, "Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main home, throwing concussion grenades and screaming `Come out,' while three National Guard helicopters approached." [2]

Who Shot First?

The question of who shot first is in a sense irrelevant, as the ATF agents clearly attacked first when they threw grenades at the Davidians' home. Once the ATF used unlawful force, the Davidians had the legal right to resist them with deadly force.

Nevertheless, the Davidians insist that ATF agents shot first. "They fired on us first," Koresh told CNN. "...I fell back against the door and the bullets started coming through the door... I was already hollering, `Go away, there's women and children here, let's talk.'" [19] Davidians in another part of the city-block-sized complex said the battle began when the helicopters circling overhead fired on them without warning [13].

David Troy, ATF intelligence chief, said a videotape was taken of the entire mission [36]. But although parts of this tape were released to the media, one important part was not: the start of the raid. It seems unlikely the ATF would have withheld this footage if it supported the ATF's contention that the Davidians fired first.

There is evidence to support Koresh's version of events. Federal law enforcement sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine the following:

* One ATF agent had an accidental discharge getting out of one
of two goose-necked cattle trailers used to transport and
conceal agents -- he wounded himself in the leg and cried out,
"I'm hit!" [14] Unless you have a very disciplined group, you
can expect all hell to break loose once any shot is fired; and
according to Charles Beckwith, a retired Army colonel and
founder of the military's antiterrorist Delta Force, the ATF's
raid was "very amateur." [28]

* Steve Willis, one of the ATF agents killed in the raid, was
assigned to "take out" Koresh if necessary. When Koresh came
out, Willis began firing a suppressed MP5 SD submachine gun at
him from the passenger side of the leading pickup. Reporters
kept some distance away from the action would not have heard a
silenced MP5 SD, while the cattle trailer would likely have
blocked their view [14,15].

------------------------------

Part Five.

Assault on Waco, Part 5

2008-12-02T10:52:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:13:45 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 5
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

The Assault

Concurrent with the attack on the front of the Mt. Carmel complex were two other attacks on the Davidians.

According to Davidians who surrendered during the siege, the helicopters circling overhead fired down through the roof into the complex, killing one man and two women as they lay in their beds [64,72]. The children, whose dormitory was on the second floor, crawled under their beds as bullets ripped through the walls above them [15,25]. Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin viewed the inside of the complex after the raid, when federal officials allowed him to meet with the Davidians and try to persuade them to surrender. He reported seeing bullet holes on the second storey, clearly coming from the outside in, at such an angle that they could only have come from above the complex [64].

Moments after the assault began, an 8-man ATF team began ascending the roof near an upstairs window which they believed to be in the vicinity of Koresh's bedroom and weapons locker [12,15]. Video footage of the raid shows the agents breaking the window, tossing grenades inside, and indiscriminately spraying gunfire within.

A well-placed federal official told the Houston Post that at least 10 Davidians were killed in the battle. One of those confirmed dead was Koresh's two-year-old daughter [24]. Another was Winston Blake, a 28-year-old printer, painter, and welder; he was shot to death as he stood unarmed by the complex's water tank [40].

Four ATF agents were killed in the gunfight, and numerous wounded. Dan Hartnett, associate director of the ATF, claimed that the ATF suffered heavy casualties because of strict rules of engagement that prohibit shooting without a definite target. "We had to wait for a target because there are so many women and children inside," he said. But broadcast video of the raid shows agents exercising poor fire control, firing over vehicles with little or no view of what they were shooting at, at a rate of two rounds per second [11,27].

The ATF's concern for the women and children inside was further demonstrated by their use of the "9 mm. Cyclone" round in their submachine guns. This highly-penetrating round is available only to law-enforcement special operations teams and the military, and is specifically designed to cut through body armor [17].

Two separate federal sources told Soldier of Fortune magazine that such a round was removed from a wounded ATF agent, and that many, if not most, of the ATF casualties resulted from "friendly fire." [17] Newsweek also reported that a federal source involved in the Waco situation said that "there is evidence that supports the theory of friendly fire," and that during the assault "there was a huge amount of cross-fire." [8] Furthermore, in the released video footage of the raid, there is little or no evidence of return fire from the Davidians.

The attack terrified the Davidians, and they were eager for a cease-fire. Wayne Martin telephoned his friend, Waco city councilman Lawrence Johnson. According to Johnson, Martin said "they were in a firefight, they were taking casualties, and a lot of people were hurt. He asked me to contact the media." [42] The New York Times reported that after capturing four federal agents, the Davidians disarmed and released them during the firefight. And both Martin and Koresh phoned 911 about the attack.

ABC broadcast portions of the 911 tapes on its Nightline program. Martin phoned first and spoke with Lieutenant Lynch of the Waco Sheriff's Department. He told Lynch, "There's about 75 men around our building and they're shooting it up in Mt. Carmel... Tell them there are women and children in here and to call it off!" Calling it off took some time. During a later return phone call, even as Lynch and Martin were trying to arrange the cease-fire, Martin's location was receiving heavy gunfire and Martin himself was hit. When requested not to return fire, an unidentified Davidian replied in a disgusted tone, "We haven't been." [7]

In the end, it was not humanitarian concerns or negotiations that brought an end to the hour-long assault; it was lack of ammunition. The 100 agents who participated in the assault had a total of only 40 rounds left among them when they finally backed off [16].

------------------------------

References.
_

Assault on Waco, References

2008-12-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 22:14:26 -0700
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Waco article, part 6
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

References

1. Press conference given by President Clinton in Washington,
D.C., on April 20, 1993, 1:36 p.m. EDT.
2. Associated Press, March 1, 1993; appeared in Knoxville News-
Sentinal.
3. Washington Times, June 1, 1993, p. E3.
4. Houston Press, July 22, 1993.
5. San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 1993.
6. Houston Chronicle
7. ABC's "Nightline", June 9, 1993.
8. "Was It Friendly Fire?", Newsweek, April 5, 1993, p. 50.
9. Reuters News Service, February 28, 1993.
10. Associated Press, February 28, 1993.
11. "Gun Gestapo's Day of Infamy," Soldier of Fortune, June
1993, p. 48.
12. Ibid., p. 49.
13. Ibid., p. 50.
14. Ibid., p. 51.
15. Ibid., p. 52.
16. Ibid., p. 53.
17. Ibid., p. 62.
18. Ibid., p. 63.
19. Houston Post, March 1, 1993, p. A1.
20. Ibid., p. A8.
21. Ibid., p. A4.
22. Houston Post, March 2, 1993, p. A8.
23. Ibid., p. A13.
24. Houston Post, March 3, 1993, p. A1.
25. Ibid., p. A12.
26. Ibid., p. A18.
27. Houston Post, March 4, 1993, p. A1.
28. Ibid., p. A20.
29. Houston Post, March 5, 1993, p. A1 and A16.
30. Ibid., p. A22.
31. Houston Post, March 8, 1993, p. A1.
32. Ibid., p. A10.
33. Houston Post, March 9, 1993, p. A8.
34. Ibid., p. A13.
35. Houston Post, March 12, 1993, p. A20.
36. Houston Post, March 29, 1993, p. A6.
37. Washington Post, April 21, 1993, p. A15.
38. Houston Post, April 22, 1993, p. A21.
39. Ibid., p. A1.
40. Ibid., p. A21.
41. Ibid., p. A20.
42. Washington Post, April 22, 1993, p. A15-16.
43. Reuters News Service, April 22, 1993.
44. Houston Post, April 23, 1993, p. A5.
45. Houston Post, April 24, 1993, p. A18.
46. Washington Post, April 24, 1993, p. A8.
47. Washington Post, April 25, 1993, p. A1.
48. Ibid., p. A20.
49. Washington Post, April 28, 1993, p. A4.
50. Washington Post, April 30, 1993, p. A1.
51. "Waco's Defective Warrants," Soldier of Fortune, August
1993, p. 46.
52. Ibid, p. 48.
53. Ibid, p. 49.
54. Ibid, p. 74.
55. "Truth and Cover-up," The New American, June 14, 1993, p.
24, quoting an April 21st television interview with Henry
McMahon, the man who relayed the offer to the ATF.
56. Testimony of BATF Director Stephen E. Higgins before the
House Judiciary Committee, April 28, 1993.
57. Associated Press, May 5, 1993.
58. "Gunning for Koresh," The American Spectator, August 1993.
59. Ibid, p. 32.
60. Ibid, p. 33.
61. Ibid, p. 39.
62. Ibid, p. 33.
63. Affidavit to obtain search warrant, submitted by Davy
Aguilera on February 25, 1993.
64. Speech by Ron Engleman on the Waco Massacre. Engleman was a
Dallas radio talk-show host whom the Davidians requested as
a negotiator during the siege. Engleman's speech was based
on his own experiences and interviews with others. A
videotape of the speech may be obtained from Libertarian
Party of Dallas County, P.O. Box 64832, Dallas, TX 75206.
65. Marc Breault and Martin King, Inside the Cult, p. 71 (1993).
66. Ibid, p. 100.
67. Ibid, pp. 106-107.
68. Ibid, p. 369.
69. "The Waco Massacre: A Case Study on the Emerging American
Police State," The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor 19 (July
1993).
70. Brad Bailey & Bob Darden, Mad Man in Waco, p. 81 (1993).
71. Ibid, p. 88.
72. Ibid, p. 173.

------------------------------

On Extremism

2008-11-30T13:10:00.000-08:00

The following editorial was originally published in the Summer 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume II, Number 1.

EDITORIALS
----------

On Extremism
by J.F.A. 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!"
_

Principles of Clandestine Communications

2008-11-28T02:45:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published in the Spring 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume 1, Number 4.

RESISTANCE
----------
Principles of Clandestine Communications
-by-
Michael Bateman

Face-to-face meetings, conducted secretly between operational personnel, are known as clandestine meetings. Such meetings are employed frequently in the field; chiefly with regard to management and administrative functions. In general, the advantages of clandestine meetings are 1) they save time, 2) they are used as a countermeasure against some forms of eavesdropping, 3) they offer a measure of certainty, and 4) they provide a means of exercising control. The stress and delicacy of secret work make human contact between an agent and his handler imperative, if an operation or organization is to survive and function effectively. The disadvantages of clandestine meetings reflect concerns of security. Participants may be under visual surveillance and the link between them may be discovered by direct or indirect betrayal. Accidental observation is also a consideration, as are snap searches. In cases where something physical is being passed, apprehension of the participants will provide direct evidence of clandestine activity.

Clandestine meetings are, for our purposes, divided into four categories: 1) meetings between unacquainted operatives; 2) meetings between acquainted operatives; 3) meetings between operatives and outsiders; 4) silent meetings, or brush contacts.

Meetings between unacquainted operatives require secure prearranged identification signals and special briefing. The general description and distinguishing features of each operative must be established and according to operational necessity known to one or both. The security problems inherent in the meeting must be analyzed. There may be risks in permitting certain operatives the ability to extensively describe others they are to meet. There may be liabilities in denying this knowledge. The description must preclude the possibility of accidental recognition of legitimate parties who just happen to be at the meeting site.

One approach to the problem of providing descriptions is the use of artificial description points, innocuous in themselves, which offer operatives means of recognition. This technique is sometimes called "showing the flag." Examples, which should not be confused with safety signals, described below, include the time-worn flower in a buttonhole or uniquely folded newspaper, familiar enough to readers of fiction. Artificial points are often given in lieu of physical descriptions involving height, weight, color of hair and color of eyes. They must be obvious enough to spur recognition yet common enough not to attract unwarranted notice. These points may also be made to mesh with prearranged dialogue.

Unique objects, such as consecutively numbered currency or two halves of the same bank-note, were once used as means of identification and this practice was continued professionally as late as World War I. Experience shows, however, that this technique should not be employed due to obvious liability in case of search or arrest.

Once initial recognition is achieved, the operatives must approach one another. At this juncture identification is made and a method often employed is that of a prearranged dialogue. This is sometimes known as use of paroles, or "secret conversation." For example: assume that the artificial descriptive point is a volume of Bronte. One operative offers, "I have never read Bronte." The other replies, "Do you mean Charlotte or Emily?" This is the first exchange. First exchanges are usually followed for safety's sake by a second exchange unrelated to the first. Again, by way of example: "I did not know there was a difference; as for me I am a gardener." The reply, "It is difficult to keep a garden in this climate." Such harmless dialogue must be structured to prevent accidental conversations with legitimate characters and must leave no question marks.

Meetings between acquainted operatives obviously do not require prearranged identification signals. In every other respect they do not and should not materially differ from other types.

Meetings between operatives and outsiders are in practice avoided but sometimes become necessary. In case where obvious risks are weighed and found to be tolerable, such meetings will be attempted subject to extensive security precautions. A classic example is the stranger who approaches a member of the Resistance, asking to join. Is he sincere, or an agent provocateur? In practice, if subsequent meetings are decided upon these will be handled by the operative first approached. The ruling assumption in such cases is that if the stranger is in fact an agent provocateur then the operative first approached is already "blown."

The manner by which federal agencies approach underground operatives merits further attention, to serve the interests of those readers who are faced with the task of identifying individuals who have been introduced into their groups. Recent federal instructional material covering this topic reads:

"...if the objective is a group of people, the agent will have to determine how he can join them. This can be done with the assistance of an informant who is in the group or, if it is a large group with formalized membership such as a club or "wing" organization, the direct approach of applying for membership may suffice. "...if the objective is to investigate a particular violation occurring at a specific location or to acquire general intelligence information, the approach could be accomplished merely by frequenting the area and establishing the assumed role."

(U.S. Department of Treasury, Law Enforcement School)

The above, while suitable for investigations of limited scope, does not acknowledge all-important questions of resistance countermeasures. Recruits must not be fully accepted until their past and present records of family life, jobs, political activities , and close associates have been investigated and found satisfactory. The usual practice is to restrict the recruit's contact to one member of the organization and to places other than the organization's regular meeting place.

Countermeasures include 1) loyalty tests, in which potential group members are subject to mock capture and interrogation, 2) a sudden summons to meet with security personnel under ominous circumstances designed to reveal signs of nervousness, 3) "leaks" purporting to inform the recruit that he has been blown and is marked for execution, and 4) a particularly effective technique involving change of meeting places. In the latter instance, potential members are kept unwitting of a change in site for a clandestine meeting at which they are expected to attend. Countersurveillants are posted to discover if the recruit is followed, or if surveillance personnel are in place at the site prior to his arrival. Assuming the recruit passes this test, he is approached and told that the meeting is off, or alternately, informed of the new meeting site.

Silent meetings, normally called brush contacts, are arguably not meetings at all. Orthodox silent meetings are conducted according to the rules of clandestine meeting practice and are normally used solely to pass something physical. Examples are exchanges of identical briefcases in a crowded airport, or the exchange of folded newspapers during a momentary pause on a park bench.

Clandestine meetings are further categorized in terms of their frequency. There are 1) regular meetings, 2) special meetings, and 3) control meetings.

Regular meetings take place according to a prearranged schedule and frequently involve the same site or sites. Such meetings will also be supported by "fall-backs," or alternative meeting times and sites, in case the regular meeting is missed for any reason.

Special meetings take place in response to special signals or requests, typically when the matter is of some urgency. Such meetings may or may not be supported by fall-backs.

Control meetings are functionally a combination of both regular and special meetings and are used in instances where a communication link has been broken or lost. In such cases, the operative must come to a prearranged site at a prearranged time to re-establish contact. Another sort of control meeting involves the use of "places of conspiracy." Places of conspiracy are utilized in emergency circumstances when an operative has been isolated through the capture or compromise of his immediate superior. In this case, the operative knows to visit a predetermined site at a particular time of day, showing certain recognition signals. A representative of the clandestine group takes not of the time and recognition signals, and if these are correct makes the approach. Because of the representative's vulnerable position as a contact for persons in danger, he is limited to this one duty and knows little about other aspects of the organization.

Meetings are held in the open, in public places or conveyances, under safe circumstances (safe-houses), and at a variety of other sites. Meeting sites should be selected on the basis of the ease with which countersurveillance may be practiced. They must be manageable. Deserted areas, for example, are ideal from a countersurveillance point of view, but assuming hostile surveillance the appearance of one operative in proximity to another in such an area may be cause for contamination. Granting this, more public places, such as parks, museums, parking lots, and a host of other locations are often used. Such places, unless selected with considerable care, can be unmanageable due to the volume of foot traffic and surrounding vantage points.

A worthwhile practice is the selection of pre-surveyed sites where ordinary traffic and activity have been observed over a long period of time. Some practitioners have selected convoy operators (countersurveillants) on the basis of their familiarity with the meeting site, acting on the principle that the convoy's job will be easier if he knows the area's normal routine.

Sites selected must actually exist, and must be accessible to both parties at the time set for the meeting. If audio surveillance is a factor the site should present participants with a measure of safety. Obviously the site and the cover must be closely intertwined. An example of this is use of a doctor's or dentist's office, or a motion picture theater. There must be plausible cover for every meeting and each operative must be fully aware of the details of this cover.

In the case of special meetings, requests are necessary. These are accomplished in any one of several ways. Distinctive arrangements of objects, chalk marks, and classified advertisements have all been used to signal requests. A common method is the use of "wrong numbers" in telephonic communication. The requester dials, and when the line is answered, asks for "Joe," or someone else who is not at that number. This is the signal that a meeting is being requested. Upon learning that, "There's nobody by that name here," the requester asks, "Is this 555-1613?" The number is a code which gives the date, time, and place. (In our example, 5 could refer to a place, 16 could refer to a day, and 13 could refer to 1300 hours). Following this the requester is informed he has reached a wrong number and rings off.

If an operative discovers or suspects he is being followed to a meeting site it becomes incumbent upon him to inform his contact of impending danger. To provide for this contingency safety signals evolved. Used in addition to recognition signals, safety signals silently advise meeting participants 1) it is it safe to approach for the secret conversation, 2) if surveillance is suspected, and 3) if a fall-back meeting is feasible.

To again follow our example of an operative with a volume of Bronte, let us assume the meeting is to take place in a public library. The operative is seated, and apart from serving as a recognition point, his book also becomes a safety signal. If the book is placed on his right it is safe to approach; on his left, there is danger. If the book lies open and face down this informs that a fall-back will take place.

Vigorous, often elaborate and time consuming countersurveillance is practiced by both participants on the way to and from meeting sites. Convoys or countersurveillants are often used to guard participants going to and from meetings. Guards are also used in the vicinity of the site itself. Another technique frequently employed is the staggered arrival. Participants arrive separately at intervals, sometimes as long as thirty minutes or more, taking special effort to observe signs of hostile activity.

Drops, known variously as "letter drops" are defined as a person, place, conveyance, or object used to transmit messages, money, or equipment in secrecy between operational personnel. Drops are used in both internal and external clandestine communications.

Drops are used in preference to clandestine meetings. In general, the advantages of drops are 1) greater secrecy for communications, and 2) greater security for personnel. Use of drops can reduce the number of clandestine meetings and offer considerably more flexibility in time. There is no direct contact between parties, and assuming the drop remains inviolate, only one operative is exposed at any given moment. Drops may be established in depth to facilitate increased isolation of either sender or receiver, or used to create a reserve of operational necessities. They are also adaptable for use by different types of personnel, such as low-level utility operatives (cut-outs) or those with poor language skills.

The principle disadvantage of drops is uncertainty. While loaded, materials in drops are outside the operative's immediate control. Drops are also liable to accidental or deliberate discovery with subsequent adverse manipulation, and the ravages of fire, flood, or wild animals. Extensive use of drops may also have a negative effect on management. Fewer meetings decrease the opportunities to train and evaluate agents.

Drops are used for both long and short term storage. Long term storage is calculated in terms of days or weeks; short term in hours. When employed for the purpose of communication, drops may hold original documents or full sized copies; or , alternately, reduced reproductions on film. Film is usually undeveloped, and placed in "trapped" containers. Documents may be in cipher or clear text. As stated above, drops are also used to transmit money or supplies. Examples of the latter include weapons, medical equipment, or other technical apparatus. Drops are of two principle types: 1) "live" drops, and 2) dead drops.

Live drops may be witting or unwitting, id est, they may or may not operate with knowledge of the clandestine purpose. Live drops are not encumbered by any organizational forms and do not require a special cover or camouflage. They are located in stores, restaurants, offices, or small shops such as those maintained by news stands or tobacconists. These locations provide ease of access for couriers and employ a high degree of normal, transient foot traffic.

Another form of live drop is the so-called underground mail station. Such drops may be located in safe-houses especially developed for the purpose with elaborate concealment chambers. As materials are received, housekeepers send coded signals or messages to the next link of the courier line, advising that service is necessary.

Dead drops are categorized variously by type or location. In the former category we find 1) stationary drops, and 2) portable drops. In the later category we find 1) urban drops, and 2) rural drops. Both categories admit of the mobile, or "roving" drop.

Stationary dead drops are selected or prepared in lamp-posts, fences, behind mirrors in washrooms, and in a host of other places such as crevices in rocks of clefts in trees. Portable dead drops, also known as "concealment devices," are discarded or specially constructed objects that contain messages, documents or equipment to be passed. Early U.S. practitioners responsible for devising concealment devices soon discovered that the cardinal principle in producing concealment devices was that the subject of disguise be neither edible nor burnable. In such cases it is liable to be used by some casual passer-by. Magnetic key-boxes, used to hide a duplicate key beneath an automobile bumper, are often used as portable drops. Mobile drops are located in conveyances, popularly the lavatories on trains, buses, or aircraft.

Urban drops are those located in public or otherwise freely accessible places and are typically used for extremely short term transmittals. Rural drops, as the term implies, are located in rustic or rural places. Rural drops are used for either short or long term transmittals.

Advisory signals and indicators are used to express 1) what particular drop is to be serviced, 2) safety or danger, 3) a drop is loaded, and 4) a drop is unloaded.

In common practice, operatives assigned to service drops will do so in response to signaled requests. This signal will usually indicate which drop is loaded, and be supported by a safety/danger signal. We note parenthetically that absence of a safety signal is regarded as a danger signal. Proceeding to the area of the drop, the operative will practice diligent countersurveillance. If the operative is confident of security the drop will be quickly unloaded. He will then make a signal to this effect supported by another safety/danger signal. Safety/danger signals are always made on return journeys, after countersurveillance has been practiced going to and coming from the drop site.

Generally, signals can be divided into five categories, as follows:

1. Graphic. Chalk marks expressing numbers, letters, or designs; notices appearing in the classified section of a newspaper, postcards, or other forms of correspondence.
2. Object. Any small object, such as a flower-pot, or arrangement of an object, such as a window shade. The object may be used independently or tangentially; that is, the object and its position may both hold significance.
3. Light. Ordinary flashlights, automobile headlights, or infrared light.
4. Sound. Radio transmissions, telephone calls, distinctive rings on door buzzers.
5. Personal. Articles of clothing, or objects carried.

Certain signals or combinations may be used solely in conjunction with specific activities. Graphic and object signals, for example, may be used with dead drops. Light and sound signals with some other activity.
_

Principles of Clandestine Behavior

2008-11-26T21:29:00.000-08:00

The following article was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume I, Number 3.

RESISTANCE
----------

Principles of Clandestine Behavior

-by-

Michael Bateman

Individual underground and resistance operatives, expected to cope with sophisticated law enforcement practices or security organizations are often as a singular disadvantage in their efforts to understand systematized techniques and practices of clandestine behavior. The varieties of this behavior, known collectively as "tradecraft," are a traditional province of secret intelligence and special operations; fields reluctant to shed light on operational methods and procedures. There is a dearth of reliable material in the literature of underground and resistance intelligence and unless the operative has an appropriate background, attempts to obtain useful extracts from the broader open literature will prove difficult indeed.

The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an introduction to elements of tradecraft important to evade enforcement operations or security investigations by underground and resistance operators. we have enclosed disciplines set a pattern of practitioners and this pattern is liable to prediction or analysis. We disagree with this theory when it is applied to clandestine behavior. The logic of tradecraft is the logic of fear. Fear is an individual matter.

The _Oxford_English_Dictionary_ defines tradecraft with eloquent simplicity as, "skill or art in connexion with a trade or calling." The trade or calling with which we are immediately concerned is that of the underground operative. Definition therefore becomes a practical matter of describing components expressed in the training literature of intelligence agencies and federal paramilitary organizations. Allowing for purely stylistic variation, or variation born of contextual circumstance, the study of tradecraft is regarded as inclusive of six broad elements:

1. AGENT HANDLING. What we refer to as agent handling includes target group analysis; spotting; assessment; development; recruitment; operational management and termination.

2. PROTECTION. Protection includes methods of establishing and maintaining cover; countersurveillance; use of safe-houses, and technical skills relating to disguise, document work and forgery.

3. COLLECTION. Collection methods are primarily technical in nature and include photography; audio surveillance; physical surveillance; surreptitious methods of entry; flaps and seals work; drawing and sketching, and elicitation.

4. COMMUNICATION. Communication studies include the use of drops and letter boxes; clandestine meetings; secret writing; concealment devices; radios; codes and ciphers, and numerous other forms.

5. INDIVIDUAL SKILLS. Individual skills include observation and memory; evasion and escape; close combat; interviewing; elicitation, and report writing, among others.

6. SPECIALTY SKILLS. Specialty skills include methods of infiltration (ingress and egress), expertise with certain weapons and explosives, and technical specialties relating to any of the categories noted above.

Our delimitation of each category is idiosyncratic. We do, however, present an accurate portrait of the interdisciplines of tradecraft as tradecraft is best regarded by underground operatives.

A major task of the opposition intelligence specialist is developing information concerning underground activity conducted in secrecy. To the extent the activity in question is indeed secret, and presupposing secrecy's role is to actively deny the opportunity for information collection, then the underground operative must be conversant with the pure practices of counterintelligence.

A useful definition of counterintelligence for underground purposes is: intelligence activity, with its resultant product, intended to detect, counteract, and prevent opposition collection encompassing security measures designed to:

1. Conceal the identify or origin of the participants
2. Conceal the activity during its incipient, or planning stage;
3. Conceal the support apparatus exploited by the participants;
4. Conceal the activity or activities during commission;
5. Protect the participants during withdrawal.

Please note that our definition of counterintelligence relates to the study of secrecy as an instrument of concealment. Concealment is the very aim of secrecy. The two are intermeshed but not identical. Concealment apart from being the aim of secrecy is a form of secrecy, while secrecy is a variable of concealment. To study secrecy one therefore begins with the study of concealment.

The study of concealment begins with categorical notice of how concealment is to be achieved. concealment is a three-fold process of manipulation involving 1) the object of concealment, 2) the observation process, inclusive of the observer, and 3) the environment. The manipulation process itself involves a philosophical ground consisting of 1) an assumption of knowledge, 2) a known category of perception, and 3) a time frame into which are injected variables of disguise, deception, and secrecy. Each variable serves an element of the process in consort with each other variable. Disguise manipulates the object, deception manipulates the observation process, and secrecy manipulates the environment.

Proceeding forth from the above we reach the modalities of concealment. These are the techniques employed to fit each variable to the corpus of knowledge and category of perception. With references to disguise, for example, we find cosmetic changes in appearance and substantive changes in form. With reference to deception we find the technique of imbedding, which redirects attention, and dispersal, which expands attention.

By way of illustration we are reminded of an old story concerning a famous smuggler who, for sake of narration, we shall call Pierre. One day Pierre appears at the frontier pushing a red bicycle on which he balances a basket filled with straw. The inspectors descend in force and for their trouble produce a single brick from the bottom of the basket. Breaking the brick, they are disappointed to find it quite genuine.

Weeks pass and the scene repeats itself. Specialists are called in to no avail and always with the same result. The inspectors know Pierre must be smuggling something but they do now know what. Curiosity changes to anguish when informants report Pierre has crossed the border for good and is living comfortably on the other side. In desperation, the Chief Inspector decides to pay the smuggler a call.

"I have, as you know, no power here," he says, "and as it seems you now reside here permanently we shall not meet again. I will ask you, no... I will beg you as one man to another to please set my mind to rest. I know you were smuggling something but I do not know what it was."

Pierre thinks for a moment and then he answers: "Bicycles, your honor, and we did it together."

"Bicycles! We together? But how?" cries the Chief.

"I painted them red," replies Pierre. "You hid them among the bricks."

In the example given, the object or aim of concealment is to prevent detection of criminal activity, id est, smuggling. Pierre's fame as a smuggler and the reaction of the inspectors is the assumed corpus of knowledge. Visual search of objects by inspectors is the category of perception. The element of disguise is red paint, the element of deception a brick, and the time frame is expanded to create the effect of dispersal. Note how all these elements work together in secrecy; so closely that an error in one can contaminate all.

To expand the shades of meaning for secrecy and concealment the technical terms "clandestine" and "covert" evolved. Clandestine refers to activity hidden but not disguised; covert to activity disguised but not hidden. This distinction is important for us to grasp. Clandestine activity is secret because it is concealed. Covert activity is concealed because it is secret. Both are secret, both exist in a continuum of concealment and at the point where one form passes into that of another the same principle of tradecraft apply.

In the traditional sense distinctions between covert and clandestine are deemed necessary to permit denials; a matter of statecraft, not tradecraft. The opposition finds these distinctions significant for other reasons. Sophisticated underground activity from inception through the planning stage is clandestine in character. Upon commission of the activity and thereafter it is covert.

Acknowledgment of the dual character of conspiracy brings us to the dual character of counterintelligence. Counterintelligence is itself clandestine activity expressed 1) defensively, or 2) offensively. The defensive aspect is often referred to as the security function. The security function involves physical and investigative measures designed to safeguard information, installations, personnel and operations. The offensive aspect refers to application of active countermeasures;
counterespionage, countersabotage, or counterreconnaissance as necessity or fashion may will.

Offensively expressed counterintelligence activity is composed of two elements; the control element (sometimes called "preventive" counterintelligence), and operational element (sometimes called "defensive" counterintelligence).

Control measures are regulatory in character. Indeed, all federal, state and local government regulatory agencies are "feeder services" of the opposition's counterintelligence agency. Control measures involve the exercise of influence in five areas:

1. CONTROL OF IDENTITY. The exploitation of identification systems such as vital statistic certificates, driving and other licenses.

2. CONTROL OF MOVEMENT. Limitation or other regulation of internal and external travel.

3. CONTROL OF ACTION. Use of regulations prohibiting certain activities such as public meetings or possession of firearms.

4. CONTROL OF COMMUNICATION. Regulation or exploitation of broadcast communications and telecommunications, whether public or private.

5. CONTROL OF PUBLICATIONS. Censorship, tacit or expressed, of newspapers or private publishing.

Operational measures are uniformly based on the extensive use of informant services. Operational measures are as follows.

1. SURVEILLANCE. Surveillance includes the selective use of static observation posts located in the area of targets of continuing counterintelligence interest. Examples are organization headquarters, airline terminals, bus stations, hotels, and the homes of suspects. Also included is mobile surveillance of counterintelligence targets and sub-targets.

2. INTERCEPTION. The techniques of interception are applied against communications. Included are postal monitors, telephonic and telegraphic monitors, detection and monitoring of clandestine transmitters and the direct interdiction of secured information systems, carriers, or repositories.

3. PROVOCATION. Provocation involves offers of service or supply, the use of false information, and incitement.

4. PENETRATION. Penetration of groups or conspiracies may be accomplished by direct involvement, indirect enlistment, or the exploitation of double agents.

5. INTERROGATION. Interrogation is used against targets and sub-targets in custody, and persons named in previous interrogations.

6. SEARCHES. Searches are conducted against persons, places, or conveyances. Searches run the gamut from extensive cordon operations to snap searches.

Brief notice must be made of the so-called human factors approach to counterintelligence operations. Human factors operations involve the production of estimative intelligence intended to portray the psychological profile of a given counterintelligence target. Examples of techniques employed are indirect personality assessment; analysis of written materials by means of word count and frequency of use; indirect monitoring of certain biological functions; observance of historical behavioral trends, and (in desperation) mystical methods such as handwriting analysis and astrological charting. Please note that what we here describe is not uniquely counterintelligence methodology as assumes much of the character of the
basic analytical function.

Having developed a common ground of terminology and having offered delimitation to the broad expanse of subterfuge and detection, we now propose to justify the study of tradecraft as an end in itself. Our thesis is fortunately rather simple and expressed as follows.

Opposition counterintelligence officers engaged in the application of control and operational measures will be faced with the task of observing and reporting clandestine and covert activity. As discussed, such activity bespeaks greater or lesser degrees of secrecy and concealment designed to foil observation. The very processes of secrecy and concealment therefore become a valid and in many cases the only target for observation. Understanding the character of these processes (id est, understanding tradecraft) will sensitize the counterintelligence officer to the manner in which observation is being manipulated, and in consort with other methodology permit him to pierce the veil of secrecy, uncovering that which is concealed.

We again briefly note the functions of counterintelligence, this time in terms of the corresponding means of secrecy and concealment used to cloak underground activity.

1. CONTROL MEASURES. Control measures are foiled by the arrangements of cover, the application of countersurveillance techniques, and the use of safe-houses.

2. OPERATIONAL MEASURES. In addition to cover, countersurveillance, and safe-houses, operational measures are foiled by the techniques of clandestine meetings, drops, and secret writing.

Each opposition counterintelligence function has to contend with one or more diametrically opposed protective or communicative elements. This is because hidden activity is, after all, a normal process of interaction between human beings; complicated by necessity for secrecy and concealment and the assumption of active attempts at detection.

Axiomatic in the counterintelligence profession is the idea that individuals are most vulnerable when in communication or movement. Why is this? One answer has to do with the quality of counterintelligence itself. Another has to do with the exigencies of agency. Human beings, when used as instruments for the performance of secret activity in lieu or on behalf of others are known as agents. Extensive use of agents, as we know, is a hallmark of conspiracy. Agency by its very definition includes measures of direction and control and an altogether logical and safely assumed process of dialogue. Detection of such communication is in many cases de facto evidence of underground activity. The foiled equipment buy or the foiled
passage of documents are two ready examples.

_

The Evil of State Education

2008-11-25T17:27:00.000-08:00

This was published in the Spring 1996 issue of THE RESISTER, Volume 2, Number 4.

The Evil of State Education

by
L. S. Spooner

Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers.

--Thomas Hodgskin

One of the most insidious frauds government has perpetrated against the American people is its school system. That system has enabled the government to usurp the freedom and responsibility of parents, to indoctrinate children into good taxpaying sheep, to transform education into mind-numbing, passivity-inducing routine, and to turn schools into laboratories for social engineers.

We constantly hear how the schools are turning out young adults who can't read, know no history or geography, and can barely balance a checkbook. Those stories are true. But believe it or not, that's not the worst indictment of the government's school system. Much worse is what it does to the character of parents and children.

Much can be learned about the nature of government schools by investigating why they were established in the first place. They were not established to make up for any deficiency in people's ability to learn to read, write, do arithmetic, and acquire knowledge of other subjects. Before about 1840, when the government-school movement began, America was a highly literate society. Publishing boomed in the young Republic. Hundreds of newspapers flourished. Books and pamphlets sold in the millions among a population of around 20 million. (In 1818 Noah Webster's spelling book sold what would be the equivalent of 65 million copies today.) European visitors such as Alexis de Tocqueville marveled.

Education was so easy to come by that the Southern states outlawed it to slaves. (You don't need to outlaw something you don't expect to happen.) Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office issued a paper not long ago stating that the literacy rate in Massachusetts has never been as high as it was before compulsory schooling was instituted. Before 1850, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to force children to go to school, literacy was at 98 percent. When Kennedy's office released the paper, it was 91 percent.

Clearly, the government schools were set up for a purpose entirely separate from true education. Rather, they were a manifestation of what later came to be called the "Progressive" mindset, the belief that people's lives increasingly needed to be subject to control by experts. The original aim of the public schools was the creation of a homogeneous national, Protestant culture--the Americanization and Protestantization of the disparate groups that made up the United States. At the individual level the aim was the creation of the Good Citizen, someone who trusted and deferred to government in all areas it claimed as its own.

Throughout history rulers and court intellectuals have aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations by creating a new kind of human being. The model was set out by Plato in The Republic and was constructed most faithfully in Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany. But one need not look only to extreme cases to find such uses of the educational system. The United States differed only by degree. One can readily see how irresistible a vehicle the schools are to a social engineer. They represent a unique opportunity to mold future citizens early in life, to instill in them the proper reverence for the ruling culture, and to prepare them to be obedient and obeisant taxpayers. Is it just an accident that the theme of every history class is that without the benevolent state, we would be overrun by robber barons, monopolists, businessmen bent on poisoning us, and other private-sector villains?

The keys to using the educational system for social engineering are compulsory attendance and tax financing. Were families free or financially able to send their children to nonstate schools or to avoid formal schooling altogether the state's effort would be thwarted. The state's ostensibly benevolent goal of universal education has actually been an insidious effort to capture all children in its net.

The deep insidiousness can be seen in the phrase "the right to an education." What could that mean? In truth, there can be no such right if it means that others are compelled to provide the services or the money. There can be no right to the labor or property of others. In contrast, there is a legitimate right to educate oneself, if that means using one's own resources and energy (or those willingly donated) to acquire knowledge and understanding. The right to an education, in practice, means the power of authorities to define what "education" means and to impose that definition on others. As the New Hampshire Supreme Court candidly said in 1902, "free schooling . . . is not so much a right granted to pupils as a duty imposed upon them for the public good. . . . While most people regard the public schools as the means of great advantage to the pupils, the fact is too often overlooked that they are governmental means of protecting the state from the consequences of an ignorant and incompetent citizenship." That is the nub of the case against compulsory education. By its nature, it extends to government the power to determine what education and school are. When the state has that power, it has everything.

Despite the widespread belief that government schools are a home-grown American institution, they actually come from authoritarian societies, such as 19th-century Prussia. The German philosopher Johann Fichte, a key contributor to the formation of the German school system, said that the schools "must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will." That sentiment is typical of the architects of government schools in all countries. American education intellectuals modeled their system on Fichte's. As former teacher and radical school critic John Taylor Gatto has written, "A small number of very passionate American ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century; fell in love with the order, obedience, and efficiency of its education system; and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to these shores."

Those intellectuals knew that to create the New Citizen, they would have to remove children from their parents' influence as far as possible. As Horace Mann, the acknowledged father of the American public school, put it, "We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause." He made clear his objective of molding children into proper beings when he said, "Children are wax."

Government schools from the beginning have been the enemies of liberty, family, and laissez faire capitalism -- the spontaneous order of liberal market society. In such an order, individuals choose their own ends and engage in peaceful means, competitive and cooperative, to achieve them. They also raise their children according to their own values and by their own judgment. In contrast, government schools interfere with that free development and try to mold youth into loyal, compliant servants of the state. As educator Maria Montessori noted, the schools' ends require a rigidity and authoritarianism that is inconsistent with the needs of growing rational beings seeking knowledge about the world. Thus, the schools are a source of immense frustration, boredom, humiliation, and even violence for many children. It should surprise no one that those schools produce children who are passive, listless, aimless, and even worse: violent toward themselves and others. (The ultimate logic of the schools is that children who don't want to sit still should be drugged to treat their "attention deficit.")

The effect on the family is less obvious but no less harmful. When government runs education all the big decisions about children's education are made by someone other than their parents. The system literally makes parents irresponsible with respect to their children's education. Why did parents tolerate that in the beginning? Why do they tolerate it now? Was the lure of "free" education so strong that the American people were willing to sell out their children for it?

The only real alternative to that system is the complete privatization of education. The government schools must be shut down at once. That would require, at least, the abolition of school taxes, the elimination of compulsory attendance laws, and the discharge of all government school personnel. Anyone should be free to start any kind of school, and parents should be free to seek education for their children according to their best judgment. There should be no government requirements with respect to curriculum, testing, or teacher qualifications.

Education can be obtained in unlimited ways, formal schooling being but one, perhaps the least effective, method. A totally privatized system would come to recognize that each child is unique and that free entrepreneurship is the best way to discover how to satisfy the demand for education. Privatization would shift the locus of education from the state to the family, where it rightly belongs. Education is not intrinsically expensive. Low-income people would, as they have done historically, finance their children's education through savings, scholarships, and charitable donations. As the burden of taxation becomes lighter, they will have an easier time acquiring the necessary resources.

Privatization would encourage social harmony. Today, government schools are a source of civil divisiveness as groups attempt to use the system to impose their values on others. In the past, the Protestants who controlled the schools excluded secular subjects such as evolution from the government schools. Today, the schools are controlled by secular relativists who use the Constitution to keep religious beliefs and practices out. Moral issues, most notably relating to sexual conduct, have provoked fiery conflict between education bureaucrats seeking to establish their notion of tolerance and modernity, and parents who believe their right to raise their children in their own way is being stolen.

Which side one takes in those disputes is not the issue here. What matters is that the government's education system offers no way out of such stressful confrontations. That someone's values will be shoved down the throats of others is a systemic defect of government-run schools. Someone's values must shape the curriculum. Here's our choice: either values will be imposed by force through a government school system, or parents will be free to choose how to educate their children. There is no middle way.

The Founding Fathers, cognizant as they were of the bloody history of religious rivalry, bequeathed to us the separation of church and state, unlocking one of the secrets to social harmony and prosperity. For all the reasons we cherish the separation of church and state, we must now have a separation of school and state.
_

Helpful Hints Department

2008-11-24T19:37:00.000-08:00

I received the following message in reply to a question about setting up a bugout kit:

If you live in the city, a nice sport coat, slacks, shirt, tie, $2,000 cash in 20's and 10's, AWOL bag containing comfy cloths and necessary hardware. Travel by train or bus if you don't trust your car. Find a nice bed and breakfast in the country with a lot of escape routes. Lay low until the heat is off. Have a (secure) destination. Just remember. Once you're on the run you can never stop. More on this later.

Our assessment is that IF they go after anyone it will be the cowboys playing soldier and shooting off their mouths. You should be OK. Remain "uninteresting."

_

Principles of Money Laundering

2008-11-23T09:47:00.000-08:00

The following article was originally published in the Fall 1995 of THE RESISTER, Volume Two, Number Two.

RESISTANCE
----------

Principles of Money Laundering

by Stephan Girard
RMO, Special Forces Underground

Money laundering is simply the act of bringing unreported money into a person's or organization's recorded (or unrecorded) account by diverting it through legitimate business fronts. Financial crimes investigators classify laundered money into four types; black money, grey money, white money, and subterranean money.

Black money is money obtained by criminal means, such as kidnapping, bribery, fraud, tax evasion, theft, smuggling, trafficking in illegal commodities (such as drugs), and armaments dealing.

Gray money is money that the owner does not want known to be in his possession, even though it may not have been illegally obtained. Tax avoidance is legal if obtained through a "loophole" that the government has overlooked. A loophole has value only until it is used to such a degree that attention is focused on it. Then the government usually changes regulations so that the loophole can no longer be used. Thus the person or institution using the tax avoidance scheme may want to prevent having his legal tax avoidance system come to the attention of the government.

As another example of gray money, a person may have a business which is exceedingly profitable, and may want to conceal his prosperity to avoid attracting attention which could cause increased competition. Or a man who may not want his wife, or partners, or relatives to know he has made or obtained a large amount of funds.

The third type of money is clean, ordinary money--the type most of us obtain in small quantities at rare intervals by hard work, investment, or inheritance. However, some people get clean money by laundering black or gray money.

The fourth and last type of money is that obtained through the "subterranean," or underground, economy. It has been estimated that in the United States alone, this economy is worth at least $500 billion per year, in both legal and illegal money, depending on the circumstances. Basically, it is like the ancient bartering system. A barber cuts his dentist's hair free, and the dentist gives him free dental services. But the phenomenal amount of this unreported money indicates a substantial portion may be illegal.

The difficulty of money laundering depends on the amount to be laundered, the place of laundering, and the sophistication of the procedure used. The simplest method in many countries is to take a risk and use the local banking system. However, this is difficult in the United States because of the reporting required. It is generally not difficult to change the respectability of currency.

There are three principle means of laundering money. The bank method, the tax haven method, and the black market method. The last is the simplest in many countries. Every country has a parallel money rate, variously called the free market, inland, or black market rate. The cost of changing currency in most countries is about 10 percent, but in countries with strong currency, it may only be 2 or 3 percent.

In practice, the black market method works this way. Assume a person has "black" money in a given country, say, New Zealand. He can take it to the black market and change it for another currency such as U.S. dollars, at the black market rate of about 5 percent. This money, now in U.S. dollars, can officially be sent back to the country in which the switch was made. The black money has been made white.

In countries with no exchange controls, money need not go through the black market. It can be changed at the official rate at any bank, without records. The system of using the parallel market involves two countries, but it is safe as long as the person is not caught dealing with the black market money changer.

The bank method of legitimizing black or grey money is perhaps the most commonly practiced method in the United States. A drug trafficker, for example, instigates the changing of money through the banking system thus: A bag of soggy bills collected from street sales is taken to the neighborhood bank and changed to reputable financial instruments such as T-Bills, Letters of Credit, large denomination traveler's checks, real estate deeds, or bank drafts, thus becoming "clean." Up until 1980, this was reasonably easy to carry out in the United States.

In 1979, proposed amendments were considered by the Treasury Department, and a new Bank Reporting Ruling went into effect in July 1980. The ruling is too complex to report in full, but its main thrust was to amend the Bank Secrecy Act which requires financial institutions to report uninsured currency transactions in excess of $10,000. Specific forms provided by the Secretary of Treasury must be used for reporting purposes.

In sum, every currency transaction over $10,000 has to be reported, with positive identification of the person making the transaction (including name, address, Social Security number if a U.S. citizen, or passport number if alien, and various other details). The new regulation made it most difficult for any one person to make a currency transaction of more than $10,000 without a complete disclosure to the government.

The tax haven method is probably the most important of all. When World War II ended in 1945, there were approximately 55 countries in the world. Today there are just under 200. Every fragment of a major country seems to want independence. Once they have independence they usually find that their costs of operating greatly increase. However, all of the costs cannot be supported by inward cash flow. The new countries usually give up agriculture, and everyone moves to the city, where there is electricity and television. For a while they "borrow their way to success" from overseas banks. But when their credit lines are exhausted, they eventually scratch at any source of income. One ever-present possibility is to operate as a tax haven--a conduit for tax evasion money, tax avoidance money, or black market derived from crime.

Money goes around the planet earth 24 hours a day in search of vacuums. "Hot money" seeks out the cool areas of survival, including what the Germans call Eine Steveroase (a tax oasis) and the French call un paradis fiscal (a financial paradise). Tax havens are refuges from death duties and high taxes. The oldest and best known tax havens are the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands Antilles, Monaco, Macao, Hong Kong, and Luxembourg. However, so many new havens are being created--e.g., the New Hebrides, Andorra, the Caicos, and Turk Island--that policing them for infractions is all but impossible. The new nations of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshalls and numerous other newly spawned nations in Africa, Asia and Europe will undoubtedly play in important role in money laundering.

Take the case of Nauru as an example. It is an independent nation, 8 square miles in size. It is a member of the United Nations and a British Commonwealth. It has no taxes of any kind, no tax treaties, and no exchange controls; commercial transactions may be carried out in any currency. The country prohibits immigration. Government almost never grants tourist visas, and it certainly does not grant tax investigation visas. A visa would be virtually impossible for an IRS or any other tax investigator to obtain. The government is sound and stable. The people of Nauru have a standard of living 50 percent higher than that of the average American citizen. There is no political unrest. English is the official language. Nauru has modern companies and trust laws, and the law draws on British traditions. It is the smallest nation in the world with a president, elected parliament, and a well-developed civil service. It has its own highly efficient airline which flies to 20 or more countries.

A holding company can be set up in Nauru with as few as one and not more than 20 shareholders. The holding company has remarkable powers. It can operate without an annual meeting, and there is extraordinary freedom in relation to its shares. It need not have an auditor. Books can be kept outside Nauru's jurisdiction. A company is effectively established by sending in a form issued by the government. The annual corporation fee is as low as $150.00 (naturally, the cost varies with the number and complexity of services required).

Commercial transactions or money can be routed through Nauru. The structure of Nauru's corporation act makes it easy for U.S. companies to form Nauruan holding corporations and manage them as wholly owned corporate subsidiaries without the necessity of setting up a "board of directors" as is required in many countries. The laws of the country have a statutory bar against any disclosure. An overseas company can easily and cheaply form a holding company which can do almost any conceivable commercial transaction such as being an intermediary in money legitimation, tax avoidance, profit stripping, re-invoicing to skim profits and take them tax-free, or do almost anything that does not represent fraud or a legal breach in Nauru (the transaction can breach laws of other countries, but Nauru does not set itself up as the world's policeman). The government has made positive efforts to welcome offshore investors and offers Nauru as a secretive tax haven, superior to those that suffer political unrest and upheaval.

It is not difficult to see how this serves those who have a need to transform black currency into white currency at a low cost, with complete secrecy. It is nearly impossible to prosecute someone through tracing finances if that person is sophisticated and knows how to use tax havens.

U.S. federal law requires that any transfer of over $5,000 out of the United States must be reported to the treasury. This, however, does not apply to inter-bank transfers. Therefore, anyone moving large amounts of cash have to set up their own banks. These are usually one-room operations in places like St. Vincent, Anguilla, or the Cayman Islands. The cost of a banking charter and license in the Cayman Islands is $6,500 in total. The bank can be "owned" by a Cayman management service company, and the beneficiary owner need never be known to any investigator. In Anguilla, no paid-up capital or reserves are required. Anguillan law states that a bank's license and charter can be sold without government approval.

Some bank haven countries even offer bank charters and licenses for as little as $60.00. The low cost of owning an offshore bank makes it quite easy to transfer huge sums of money, with no reporting to anyone, and the cash filters through the bank as a conduit. It can be returned to the United States, pure as the driven snow, as a loan or any other similar way, or it can be placed in a secret account elsewhere.

Another ruse is the use of bearer bonds. These are not registered in anyone's name--they belong to whoever holds them. A person who wants to hide his money can buy municipal bonds and store them with his broker (unlike T- bills). The broker keeps them separately in a special account for each customer. The only place where a name is registered is at the brokerage house, which keeps the name only of the original buyer and the holder at the time of sale. It does not record intermediate sales. A lot of people use this system to keep their money possessions secret.

Tax-free municipal bonds are also used. The Wall Street Journal lists these and their interest rates. They are usually in bearer form, and interest is paid by redeeming coupons. They are available only through brokerage houses. The broker keeps the name of the original purchaser, but intermediate sellers and buyers are not registered. These bonds may purchased with cash or otherwise, through a third party. Millions of dollars of unreported assets and income can be accumulated this way.

There are numerous other methods of laundering money. For example, insurance agents can accept deposits in any amount, and no bank reports are necessary. Examples laundering money through insurance companies include:

1) The overseas "Umbrella life policy." An overseas insurance company (usually in the United Kingdom, Jersey, Switzerland, Hong Kong, or Australia) sells a life insurance policy in the United States. (They are even sold by direct mail or telephone solicitation.) These overseas companies have devised an "umbrella policy" which includes not only life insurance, but also investments. For example a $300,000 policy may have $100,000 in full life insurance, and $200,000 in currencies, stocks, bonds, T-bills, or other investments. The policy is classified by the United States as insurance, even though it is only partially insurance. It is usually single payment, the total cost for life is paid up at the time the policy is taken out. The cost may be $60,000 or more, depending on the makeup of the policy, for a $300,000 policy.

The advantage of this type of policy to a normal customer is that when the insured dies, his heirs get the full value (investments and all) tax free. If the investment part was separate and not packaged with the insurance, the heirs would have to pay death duties.

If a policy holder wants to cash in the policy before death, say in five years, he pays only capital gains on his earnings.

2) "Borrowing" against a life insurance policy. A money launderer buys a policy from a company. He can pay the agent in any way he wants, perhaps even with bags of soggy bills. Unlike banks, the insurance agent does not have to report cash transactions over $10,000. The money is received by the agent, who finds ways to get it to the parent company. The money launderer then borrows up to 90 percent of the value of his policy, and the money is sent to him wherever he desires. The U.S. government is quite accustomed to loans from insurance companies to policyholders. The borrower pays no tax on a loan. It is all legal, and the $300,000 (or whatever the sum) has been returned to the laundry man with no tax, and only a small service charge, quite proper. The IRS has no objection showing a loan from an insurance company.

Contrary to popular belief, the 1980 reporting regulations (Section 103.22 of part 103 of Title 21, code of Federal Regulations) did not make money laundering impossible. The 1980 Treasury Department Regulations have produced only two results: 1) money laundering was temporarily retarded while people found more sophisticated systems of circumventing the regulations; 2) it is now more difficult, more costly, and more important to launder money. The amount of money laundering may even have increased because laws make it imperative to launder black and gray money.

The 1980 regulations did not stop money laundering for a variety of reasons. Federal regulations do not restrict banks or other financial institutions from accepting or transferring cash. It only requires financial institutions to "report within 15 days all unusual deposits or withdrawals or other transactions, the name and address, the account number, social security or taxpayer number (if any), or in the cases of
aliens a passport or identification document (unless the person or institution is exempt) and only in cases of over $10,000 transactions."

Exempt from this regulation are U.S. residents who operate retail stores which deal in a "substantial amount" of currency. Exempt also are U.S. residents who operate amusement parks, bars, restaurants, sports arenas, racetracks, grocery markets, hotels, licensed check cashing services, or theaters. For example, one could own 3 different bars in 3 different cities, use several banks in each city, and make cash deposits of tens-of-thousands of dollars per day with no reports filed by the banks, and without breaking the regulations.

Exempt also are withdrawals of cash for payroll purposes. Finally, transactions between domestic commercial banks or home loan banks are exempt as are transactions between nonbank financial institutions and commercial banks.

Because currency transactions involving less that $10,000 do not have to be reported, one can deposit or "legalize to other forms of money" any amount as long as it is divided up--for example, he can launder $24,000 by three $8,000 deposits in three banks or branches.
_

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS

2008-11-21T18:25:00.000-08:00

This was published in the second issue of THE RESISTER.

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS

For the past two months our observers have been reporting that some readers are questioning the integrity of contributors to The RESISTER because they choose to be known by pseudonyms rather then their real names. This is a legitimate concern and it deserves to be answered at length.

First, no contributor is obliged to use a pseudonym, as anybody who has actually READ the first issue can tell you. Second, the decision to require staff members and regular contributors to use pseudonyms was an OPSEC issue, not an ethical one. Third, there is a historical precedent we follow which, if not already familiar to you, in all likelihood never will be, and is therefore none of your business. Fourth, publishing The RESISTER is a security risk in its own right, let alone referring to in tradecraft and organization. Really, what DO they teach you guys in the Q-course these days?

The RESISTER is a response to the altruistic cannibalism which is consuming the principle of inalienable individual rights upon which this nation was founded and which have been served-up in sacrifice to the mob god of democracy, the minority god of tribalism, the nature god of environmentalism, the slave god of collectivism, and the statist god of socialism.

Do you want to know who we are? We are the individuals who conceive the ideas the cretinous mob calls "the team effort." We are the individuals whose excellence is subverted by the racist policy of "equal opportunity." We are the independent, innovative, and creative who have been enslaved to serve the "greater good." Without us you would still be prying roots out of ground with a pointed stick.

It would be a great comfort and convenience for the myriad unconstitutional federal agencies to note us, categorize us, and file us away for future "reference." We will not give them an early chance, nor will we be goaded into identifying ourselves by sneering comments about anonymous writers.

Every whim based, undefined, un-judicable law it passes; every unconstitutional gang of armed badge wielding thugs it deploys; every unconstitutional agency it creates; every incomprehensible special interest regulation it mandates; every dime extorted through taxation and redistributed to the incompetent and undeserving; every American life lost in some altruistic war, humanitarian assistance, or peacekeeping operation, demonstrates the illegitimacy of the federal government.

The federal government is not "of the people," it is the instrument of pull-peddlers. It is not "by the people," it is the toady of special interests. It is not "for the people," it is the exercise of force for the sake of force.

Pass laws against us; we will not obey. Regulate our activities; we will not comply. Legislate our behavior; we will not consent.

We are freemen. We will not be subjugated. We have the guns to prove it.

THE EDITOR
_

NO COMPROMISE: Don't Tread on Me

2008-11-18T14:11:00.000-08:00

This was originally published in the very first issue of THE RESISTER.

NO COMPROMISE: Don't Tread on Me

by "Minuteman"
3 SFG(A)

As a soldier-historian I have been watching, with considerably more than passing interest, The very document I have sworn to defend against both foreign and domestic enemies, the Constitution of the United States, sink deeper and deeper into a socialist cesspool; a cesspool constantly fed by the sewer of compromise.

On 19 April 1775, a handful of men in Lexington Massachusetts took up arms in defense of their peers at Concord to oppose a force sent to confiscate their means to resist tyranny. This confiscatory force was not a foreign invader, nor an army of occupation; it was the army of their government. Our ancestors resisted, and won.

Modern Americans are content to grovel at the feet of their government, compromising at every turn, whimpering insipid platitudes of subservient thanks when their Constitutional rights, assured by the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, are granted to them anew as privileges.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are limitations on government -- not the individual. Bear in mind that the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were not the product of those who wrote the Constitution, the Federalists, but to those who opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists recognized the potential for tyranny in the Constitution and insisted on guarantees of inalienable rights that could not be abrogated by the government. They recognized that all government is, by definition, tyrannical.

Socialists believe words are fuzzy, undefinable constructs that assume whatever meaning they want under whatever whim context they invent at the time. Socialists hate the 18th century language of the Constitution because the words used actually had specific meaning in the context in which they were used. Thus the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In context, the term "...regulated Militia," meant the whole citizenry, independently armed, practiced and drilled in the use of their arms, prepared to take up those arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

In context, the phrase "...free State," meant not only defense against foreign aggression, but more explicitly, defense against domestic tyranny.

Note the elegance and exclusivity of the closing to this keystone of the Bill of Rights, "...shall ont be infringed." In context this means: No organization, government or non-government, by design, neglect or whim, through legislation or regulation, for reasons specific or implied, shall restrict this right in any way, form, or condition.

Socialists believe the Second Amendment refers only to State government, or even more terrifying, to the Federal Government. Their shopworn bromide that the term "...the people..." in the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and police, but not to individuals, is a base lie.

"...(T)he people..." means all individuals. Period.

The National Guard is an instrument of force of a state government. The Reserves are an instrument of force of the Federal Government. Both organizations are, in 18th century terms, a Select Militia. It was in wise opposition to a government monopoly of armed force by a Select Militia in general and a standing army in particular, that the individual's right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed. No wonder our socialist government and their despicable altruist cheerleaders despise the Second Amendment.

Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment have affirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to individuals, not to armed gangs on federal or state payrolls. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right of individuals to bear arms appropriate to (select) Militia use is unquestioned. This means: If the National Guard, Reserves, standing army, and innumerable armed gangs of local, state, and unconstitutional Federal police have, for example, M-16 rifles, it is not only the right of individuals to possess and openly bear the same weapons, it is contrary to the preservation of their liberty not to.

Political socialists in the U.S. Congress, as well as police state socialists in the unconstitutional Justice and Treasury Departments are using the typical stalking horses of government tyranny, public safety, and some undefined mob of irrelevancies called "the children," to creep up on and abolish the sole guaranty of personal liberty in the Constitution, the Second Amendment.

By "public safety" the Federal government means greatly expanding the powers of their own armed gangs of badge wielding thugs. By those amorphous abstractions they call "children" they are referring to 15 - 24 year-old minority street garbage killing each other over drug and extortion turf.

Socialists are constantly calling for compromise on Second Amendment issues which they themselves fabricate. Compromise, as any intelligent person knows, is unmitigated evil. Only the inept, irrational, and intellectually corrupt ask for compromise and only they win when compromise is conceded by the able, rational, and intelligent out of some fear of being labeled "extremist."

Socialists revile those who stand on principle, those who distinguish right from wrong, and those who can differentiate between truth and lies. Whenever socialists fling accusations of extremism you can rest assured that their opponents have the truth of their side. Simply put, in any compromise between poison and food, only death wins.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the victor in the compromise between the right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those of the Select Militia, and government legislation against them, is slavery. The men who stood armed against their government at Lexington knew that their only choice was liberty or serfdom. They did not compromise.

Two-hundred years ago Randy Weaver and David Koresh would have been heroes for resisting government whimsy. Today they are vilified for having defended their liberty by force of arms. The unconstitutional Federal police, as always, demonstrated groveling cowardice in their investigation, execution, and cover-up of these outrages. The media, as always, whined, simpered, and adopted the greasy socialist party line like the practiced second handers they are.

Adopting the bald eagle as the national symbol was a mistake. It should have been the rattlesnake. Philosophically, the only flag in our history that reflects the cause of the American Revolution, resistance to government tyranny, is the coiled rattlesnake over the words: "DONT TREAD ON ME." No one can look upon that flag and misunderstand its meaning.

Under the Constitution the only Federal crime is treason. Subverting the Constitution can only be construed as such. Those in government, Federal state, or local, who by action or inaction would legislate away the only individual guaranty against tyrannical government, the right to keep and bear arms, and those who support such legislation, are traitors to the Constitution.

As a soldier of the standing army I am sworn to defend the Constitution against these domestic enemies of the Constitution. I will, and I am not alone.
_

The Conspiracy of Philosophy

2008-11-18T06:14:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published in Volume 2, Number 2 of THE RESISTER.

The Conspiracy of Philosophy

by M. O. Warren
PAO, Special Forces Underground

Black helicopters. Secret cabals of hidden influence. A massive "New World Order Conspiracy" whose tentacles reach into every facet of our lives--its minions just waiting for the hidden World Government's orders to tattoo "666" bar codes onto our foreheads. It just doesn't exist. No matter how much the NWO conspiracy believers want it to exist, it just doesn't.

The possibility of a such a far-reaching and all-powerful secret "World Government" maintaining such a huge conspiracy for any length of time is beyond even the realms of fiction. It is impossible to imagine the resources that it would take - not to mention the number of people that would have to be in on it. Much like the old East German STASI, which employed 25 percent of East Germans to spy on the other 75 percent, and then used unpaid informants among the 75 percent to keep tabs on their spies! Why, even the most vocal of the NWO conspiracy theorists might be members of that conspiracy with orders to mislead and confuse us....

Enough! Conspiracies of people are fun, but they just aren't there. At least not in the way they are presented.

"Ahh...", say the conspiracists, "how do you explain the Trilateralists and the Council for Foreign Relations--with their members permeating business, government and the media throughout the US and Europe? How do you explain how their members serving in key roles in both Republican and Democratic administrations for dozens of years? How do you explain their secret meetings?"

The explanation is right there before us. There is in fact a conspiracy. A conspiracy far worse than any paranoid flight of fancy might create: a conspiracy of philosophy.

These organizations (the Trilateralists, the CFR) exist because a large number of influential people adhere to the same flawed statist philosophy. This philosophy, which fueled Franklin D. Roosevelt's dictatorial transformation of this Republic into a socialist "democracy," has dominated American politics in both parties since the 1930s. Like all philosophical revolutions, its roots extend farther into the past--but it was the crypto-communist F.D.R. who made it the cornerstone of American politics. The politics of compromise and 40 years of a Democrat controlled House enabled statists of all shades of red to undermine the Constitution straight through, and including, the alleged "Republican Revolution" of November 1994.

From the Missouri Compromise to Senator Robert Dole's one man midnight "evil-looking rifles" compromise vote, compromise has been the Achilles Heel of the Republic. Formerly, the great congressional compromises merely delayed addressing issues; issues that festered into great crises with far-reaching consequences. Now, the statists have learned to manipulate compromise so that, in the end, they have conceded nothing and socialists have coincided all. The liberal media and socialist politicians praise their opponents for being "bipartisan" and "statesmen" while celebrating another victory for the supremacy of the all-powerful State and the further erosion of the status of sovereign citizen into that of peon.

The great truism of revolution is that it is a struggle of ideas, not of arms. This is a continuation of the struggle that led to our revolt against tyranny and then to the adoption of our Constitution--that singular document that enshrines the natural rights of Man and guarantees them against the tyranny of the State. Notice that I did not say "grants" or "gives". Your rights as an individual are natural rights (in other words, they would exist in a "state of nature", where the individual is sovereign and the State does not exist), they can not be "granted" or "given" to you. Your rights are unalienable, whether you choose to exercise them or not. Yet, as the Framers knew, the State can deny your rights, but only if you are stupid enough to grovel for "security."

And it is to continue this most poignant struggle, that of a Free People against the natural inclination of the State to tyranny, that the Framers built separation of powers into the Constitution. They did it with malice of forethought, so the People would never become complacent--but rather be eternally vigilant.

Statism is the natural inclination of any government to tyranny. While it has a name, it is a philosophy, not a conspiracy. As in any philosophy, its believers can range from the benign to zealots. Woodrow Wilson was a benign statist (that sick species known as 'do-gooder')--he would probably be shocked (but not disappointed) to see the total transformation of the federal government that grew from his socialist idealism. Zealotry is personified in Franklin D. Roosevelt (Clinton's hero), who believed that any whimsical end the State espoused justified any means to accomplish it.

Unfortunately, the wisdom of the Framers did not foresee the moral slough and intellectual bankruptcy that the American people would fall into when socialists promised them a free lunch and "retirement with dignity"--nor did they foresee the mischief that a communism sympathizing media would enable. (Except, perhaps, Alexander Hamilton, who is reputed to have remarked to James Madison, at a dinner held in honor of the ratification of the Constitution: "The people. Your people are a great beast.")

The paranoid fringe, with their delusions about FEMA conquering these United States from their underground bunker headquarters with an army of blue-helmeted Third World thugs counting the cash in your pocket with a scanner from across the street are the best friends the statists have. While these misguided ones are busy forming militias to fight the UN and a Russian armored division living in salt mines below Detroit (or is it Kansas City?), they are actually encouraging the growth of statism. First, these obvious fantasies are held in ridicule by the majority or true patriots--and their most vocal adherents are adept at appearing ludicrous! Second, their activities both provoke and legitimize statist internal security measures which lead to greater acceptance of tyranny. The hapless so-called militias have done much to provoke and encourage the introduction of alleged anti-terrorist legislation that further promotes tyranny--let alone the damage done to the cause by fools who appear before Congress in fatigue uniform.

We must reject delusion and instead work to fight statism as a philosophy, a vile poison that has infected every venue of American society and politics. Our credo must remain the Constitution, the very bedrock that defines our Republic. The writings of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and other commentaries by the Framers (as well as those political philosophers who influenced them) provide us with insight that illuminates that document. We must guard against irrationalists who can not read the Constitution's plain English, or who seek to re-interpret it as a "living document."

To do this, we must speak out. In this and every other platform. We must vote--and be prepared to throw the compromising bastards out over and over again until our message is received. It takes direct, active involvement. We must demand accountability from our elected representatives and refuse to entertain the pronouncements of unelected pull-peddlers. We must re-capture our schools from the state, or refuse to send our children to them. And we must stay true to the ideological foundations of this Republic.

Compromise is certain death.
_

Militia Organizations and Effective Communications

2008-11-17T02:52:00.000-08:00

This article was originally published in Volume 2, Number 1 of THE RESISTER.

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.

_

Democracy Is No Excuse

2008-11-16T12:24:00.000-08:00

The following was originally published in the eighth (Spring 1996) issue of THE RESISTER and posted online as an ASCII text. Further reposts will occur as I find the old text files or type up new text files. --LB

Democracy Is No Excuse

by

D. van Oort

Democracy is the unlimited rule of the majority; nothing more, nothing less. There is no escaping that such a rule is as unlimited in its scope as it is unmitigated in its severity. In our past, when people did not try so desperately to escape the inescapable, democracy was referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Men within government did not advocate such a tyranny if they expected to be admired and re-elected. Today, as looters and destroyers, they do.

When you hear the claim, "America is a democracy," it is invariably a response to the reporting or predicting of some inexcusable piece of tyranny, and it usually emanates from the would-be tyrant or from his chorus. Of the many lies concealed within their claim, the first one we need to catch them in is the one that says that they believe that America is a democracy.

Every time one of them uses democracy as an excuse for something tyrannical, that some alleged majority supports, there is another time when he uses a different excuse for the same kind of tyranny while admitting that no one supports it at all. For example; the same President who wanted to "restore democracy" in Haiti, sent American soldiers to Bosnia under foreign command while openly admitting that the majority of Americans opposed it. The same Congress that brought us the assault weapon ban on the belief that a majority of Americans wanted it, brought us NAFTA on the belief that what the majority of Americans want is of no consequence.

Those examples reveal that democracy is not a consistent standard by which political actions are taken; rather, it is simply an occasionally convenient excuse for taking those actions in the first place. The moral code those actions are intended to enforce is altruism, the evil doctrine that one has the right to exist only if he serves others. The intended result of consistent altruism is fascism[1], an omnipotent state to enforce complete servitude. Since evil policies in a constitutional republic require a pseudo-legal cover story to excuse them, fascists have found it more convenient to keep on hand a grab-bag of rationalizations, rather than principled reasoning with which they might have to remain consistent. Our war of attrition against their cover stories brings us to the grab-item called "democracy." We will show that there is no excuse for fascism (or socialism or communism), and democracy is no excuse for an excuse.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, can the word "democracy" be found. Neither can one find references to democracy in the works of the Framers in other than disparaging terms. Democracy is a form of dictatorship. Consider that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of American principle, and that while socialism, communism and theocracy deny the correctness and extent of those principles, unlimited majority rule denies statements of principle altogether. Consider that the Constitution limits how the government makes and enforces laws, and that the Bill of Rights limits the specific content of those laws. Socialism, ommunism and theocracy reject those limitations in favor of their own limiting ideologies and precepts, but only democracy rejects all limitations, and quite literally uses that as its selling point.

Democracy is neither legally nor theoretically possible in any country that possesses even a single over-riding legal document. The two simply cannot coexist. When a system such as democracy is touted as beneficial, but is clearly and historically detrimental, the ideas alleged to excuse it obviously fail to do so.

A case in point is democracy's proclaimed moral justification. None has ever been presented. The notion of unlimited majority rule is two thousand years old. In all this time, no one has offered a clear and coherent moral excuse for it. (Consider the excuses you have heard or read.) The closest excuse for this excuse is: "majority rule is right because it benefits the majority." Circular illogic based on the false premise that tyranny is beneficial does not justify anything, nor does it even attempt to explain how it could be right if three voted to send two to a gas chamber. The next step down is: "majority rule is right because it works for the common good." Note that the only change is the addition of a second false premise: that the common good includes the minority of two sent to the gas chamber.

Throughout history and in the present day, advocates of unlimited majority rule have never admitted to anyone what their true justification is. Since democracy sanctions only the group with the greatest numbers, then it ultimately sanctions only the strength of that group. This means: how many votes it can cast, how many picket signs it can carry, how many fists it can swing, or how many bullets it can fire. For two thousand years, the sole moral justification of democracy--the skeleton in the closet--is that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Beginning with Socrates' yammering, in acceptance of his death sentence, through Ross Perot's referendums about "taking it to the people," and all the statistics about percentages of idiots favoring gun control, "might makes right" is the sole justification. Nothing else is stated, nothing else is possible, nothing else has occurred in any democracy, and nothing else was ever intended to.

As an alleged moral code, "might makes right" is ageless. It is not an ideology or even part of one. It is not unique to man or to human history. The perceptual-level consciousness of a hyena pack on the Ngorongoro Crater understands and lives by "might makes right." The earliest theropod dinosaurs in the Triassic jungles of Pangaea learned as babies that "might" applied to a nest-mate "makes" a result that was as "right" as they could conceive it. The sensate-level consciousness of the first organism in the universe lived by "might makes right." (It is worth noting that advocates of democracy usually refer to their agenda as "progressive.")

"Might makes right" is the proper code of animals because, to live as an animal, a mind is not required. The human mind is what separates us from animals, and to live as a human, a mind is required. Democracy denies this. "Might makes right" claims that there is nothing that separates us from animals, and that to live as a human-animal, a mind is not required at all.

Advocates of democracy demonstrate very clearly that they believe that. Consider their intellectual excuse for might making right. If force is the determining factor, then principle and fact are not. The most idiotic idea is just as good as the most brilliant. If a group wants one and one to equal three, and can beat up the group that does not, then one and one equal three.

Democracy is pure subjectivism. Advocates of democracy believe that no idea is better than any other (and that that idea is better than any other). They believe that man cannot determine the facts of reality (and that is a fact of reality they have determined). Advocates of democracy contend there exists nothing but subjective whims (but their whims are not subjective). They conclude that there are no facts at all (and that's a fact).

Their excuse for might making right is that all excuses are equally valid. That ugly little confession is the intellectual equivalent of suddenly blurting out a sexual perversion, but while the pervert might notice that he has done this, advocates of democracy remain oblivious. They rarely notice the staggering amount of doublethink in their claims, and are never bothered by it. (If they are philosophy students, doublethink is "profound.") They expect man to renounce his mind just because they have thoroughly renounced their own. They say that a mind is not required to live as a human, and they prove it by showing that a mind is not required to advocate democracy.

One would be right to ask at this point, "Just what color is the sky in their world, anyway?" Now we have entered the most basic branch of philosophy, "metaphysics," which seeks to answer the question of what kind of creature we are and what kind of universe we live in.

Democracy demands that they put the color of their sky to a vote if official answers are to be made concerning it. They must do this because they believe that there are no facts, therefore, they don't know because they can't know.

Their most fundamental belief is that reality is unknowable. The universe is either chaotic mush, one big illusion, or both. To an advocate of unlimited majority rule, man has no objective nature that requires specific rules of conduct because reality itself has no objective nature that can be determined.

The metaphysic of democracy explains the psychology of its advocates. If men can know nothing, but still have desires, then there is no way of knowing how to suppress those desires, or fulfill them. We would be incapable of anything but misery, and unsuited for anything but death. Our universe would not just be unknowable, but evil as well, and would not consist of facts we can build on, but only of a long torturous obstacle course we can bleed in.

If the universe can help us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been helped. Thus, we shun self-reliance and promote the welfare state. If the universe can hurt us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been hurt. Thus, we fear the black magic inherent in guns. In essence--and you can ask them about this--democracy's advocates say: "We're all just cripples in an evil universe, we can't help it, we can't know any better, we're just animals, so we get to beat you up!" That is their excuse for democracy.

As with all political systems, the results of unlimited majority rule are unavoidably linked to its ideology. If a system is based on good premises, it will produce good results, and will therefore attract good people. If it is based on evil, it will produce evil, and will attract only evil.

Knowledge of reality is easy and begins with any statement such as "existence exists" or "what is, is." Thus, the basis of democracy is a falsehood. Man cannot live by falsehoods, whether personally or socially enshrined. Ignorance means death, and any belief set preaching ignorance will only produce death. Only men who seek destruction will be attracted to democracy.

Advocates of democracy admit with every revealed contradiction that they do, in fact, believe that reality is knowable. Thus, the basis of democracy is an intentional falsehood. Man cannot live by lies, and any ideology preaching lies is designed to produce death, and will attract only fools, liars and killers.

Democracy does not recognize the individual, and thus attracts collectivists. It has no principles to offer, and thus attracts the unprincipled. Its only appeal is to evil because that is its nature, over which even the best man with the purest motives has no control. Those who are evil know very well the nature of the systems they design or support, and the nature of unlimited majority rule will be the same whether it is an excuse for fascism or for anything else. At the very instant democracy is enforced on a population, it begins to destroy that population psychologically.

Ayn Rand once said, "[T]he smallest minority on earth is the individual." This means that every man is always in the minority, and that all other men are, or might be, members of some majority that can murder him at its pleasure. Any man who proclaims that, "it's a dog-eat-dog world," or that, "you gotta get them before they get you," is a man already suffering the psychoses of democracy.

He cannot heal them by joining a group, where democracy begins destroying populations physically. If he joins a minority, the forces of the majority can be unleashed against him today. If he joins a temporary majority, the forces of the next majority can be unleashed against him tomorrow. If he spends his fearful life desperately joining only majority groups -- seeking his "safety" every minute in the no-rules obstacle course of keeping up with one or the other obedient herd -- damning his individuality which sets him apart from them, then the forces of his own mind are already unleashed against him, and he begins to destroy himself mentally and physically.

The forces of the majority have already been unleashed against minority groups of "separatists" (self-sufficient), "cultists" (strong believers) and "extremists" (non-compromisers). Those forces are now being unleashed against ex-majority groups such as the middle-class employees of K-mart. Men spending their lives in pursuit of permanent majority status, who fear to stand out by so much as waving at a policeman, smoking a cigarette, or reading The Resister[2], are becoming used to unleashing the forces of their own minds against themselves.

Man cannot find peace when set up as enemy of all other men; he cannot live by being slaughtered with his group today, he cannot build a future by being slaughtered with his group tomorrow, and he cannot save his soul by slaughtering it himself. Democracy is not a system under which men choose their manner of living, it is a system under which they choose only their manner of death. Such destruction is not an abuse of the system--it IS the system. Democracy is not a system for man; it is a system against him.

On the whole, democracy is an inexcusable excuse to excuse the inexcusable. Fascism is no excuse for lying about believing in American democracy. There is no excuse for believing in democracy in a constitutional republic. There is no excuse for democracy, and democracy is no excuse for fascism.

1 Do not confuse The Resister's use of the word "fascist" with its ordinary use by liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups. Liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups call anybody who opposes their social democratic, statist or tribalist agendas "fascists." Fascism and communism are merely variant forms of statism, which is the collectivist premise that individuals are rightless slaves, and that the state is omnipotent. Both fascism and communism are socialist. Communism is the public (read government) ownership of the means of production, thus abolishing private property. Fascism permits the pretense of property ownership, but without the right to use property for personal advantage -- property must be used for "the public good." (Does the phrase "good corporate citizen" ring a bell? Does the current systematic destruction of the tobacco industry -- to name but the most recent industry -- strike a chord?) JFA Davidson

2 The author is referring to those who read mooched copies of The Resister, but will not subscribe to it because they don't want their name on "a list." This is a craven admission that they want to think for themselves, but they don't want anyone to know about it. Who says democracy doesn't work? JFA Davidson.
_

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

2008-11-16T07:20:00.000-08:00

The following was submitted to the editor of the original edition of THE RESISTER and subsequently rejected. It was originally written during the Clinton Administration and is published here as is.

And the offer still stands for the Obama Administration:

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.

After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States, you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote.

You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.

The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.

The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.

If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolph Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.

As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.

-- R. Hemmerding

Agents Provocateur and Informants

2008-11-16T01:02:00.000-08:00

The following was originally published in the third (Winter 1995) issue of THE RESISTER and posted online as an ASCII text. Further reposts will occur as I find the old text files or type up new text files. --LB

Agents Provocateur and Informants

The FBI is mounting a quiet but concerted effort in congress to revive their domestic intelligence operations. Under current congressional over sight mandates on domestic intelligence the FBI is limited to investigating only suspected criminal acts by individuals who belong to "subversive organizations" but they are not permitted to investigate the organization itself. Since early 1992 the FBI has been cultivating informers within the patriotic movement in anticipation of having congressional oversight restrictions reversed.

One method to reduce the risk of compromise is to require each member of your militia or organization to swear or affirm an oath worded as follows: "I (state name) have never been, am not now, do not contemplate nor intend to be in the future, a local, state, federal or international law enforcement official, nor have I ever been, am not now, nor contemplate or intend to be in the future, an informant for any local, state, federal, or international law enforcement agency."

This must be done individually.

A simpler method is to ask: "Are you a cop?" Then: "Are you an informant?" These are yes or no questions and require a "yes" or "no" response.

We know it is ugly, but it is a necessary security procedure. If they say "no" any evidence they collect is considered entrapment.

For now, at least.
_

A Rant Reborn

2008-11-13T14:37:00.000-08:00

This is a rewrite of a rant I posted online before I became involved with the original RESISTER. The original text was a bit more nihilistic in content.

The Leftist nomenklatura of this country, with the aid of the prostitutes of the Main Stream Media, is once again free to resume the unrestrained process of ignoring, violating, and ultimately erasing the Constitution that I once swore as a member of the United States Army to uphold and defend.

The government -- that the best and most rational men of this country fought, bled and died to establish and protect -- will continue to be perverted into another system of plunder and oppression.

The legacy of the Founders, and those who fought and died to preserve the Republic, is being spat upon, forsaken and abused.

There are millions and millions of people in this country who repudiate responsibility for living their own lives and beg for a Big Brother to take care of them. And of course, The Big ZERO, a example of what Plato euphemistically called a "philosopher king," is all too happy to step forth and grant their dearest wishes. And never mind the cost -- that's what the rest of us are for.

The poets, philosophers, priests and politicians loudly proclaim that it is our duty to sacrifice our own lives, liberties, properties and whatever purpose we have in our lives so that overgrown crybabies can feel snugly warm and secure in the bosom of the Big Mommy State. And if any of us -- the people who are adult human beings -- raises any objection to being used as tools to achieve this end, then the squads of storm troopers (Plato would say "guardians") that our police will be perverted into will "take care of us."

Our self-proclaimed ersatz-parents, from The Big ZERO on down, don't know what they're doing nor do they want to know. When we the true adults complain about their actions and try to explain why they are wrong, they will emit excuses for ignoring us. And if that doesn’t work they will forcibly silence us.

But enough about knowledge, let’s talk about feelings.

The Big ZERO, the newly anointed God-King and his mob of courtiers will try to refuse to mentally focus on objects in reality including us, but their subconscious is still receiving signals from their senses, they get emotional signals, that is, they have feelings as things move in and out of the range of their perception. When they perceive the people who don't need them -- the people who are rational and independent -- they will feel fear and hatred. They will feel the need to destroy by any means all intellectually and morally autonomous persons.

When I mentally focus on them are and what they are doing -- my subconscious sends signals of hate, fear and contempt -- and why shouldn't it?

Why shouldn't I feel the need to see our new oppressors, and their willing servants, stood against a wall and shot -- I want to see bullets rip into their bodies and see their blood and utterly corrupted brains splattered all over the place. Why should I not want to see the bullet shredded corpses of our new socialist overlords and other such creatures with delusions of parenthood, and even godhood, dumped into any garbage landfill site that happens to be convenient?

I really can’t think of any reason why not.

(BTW, where did they dump President and Mrs. Ceausescu?)

Book Review: Atlas Shrugged

2008-11-09T19:22:00.000-08:00

This book review was originally published in Volume 2, Number 3 of THE RESISTER. Price and book service contact information should no longer be accurate.

Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. Penguin Group, Penguin Books USA, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, USA. ISBN 0-451-17192-6 Paperback. vii + 1084 pages. 1957. $7.99.

Reviewed by
D. van Oort

Atlas Shrugged is the opus magnum of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, and is the first work of fiction to be reviewed in these pages. Its theme is the role of the mind in the affairs of man. Atlas Shrugged illustrates this dramatically and memorably by showing just why, for the first time in history, the men of ability should go on strike against the advocates of incompetence and the purveyors of envy, and what will happen when they do.

"Who is John Galt?" Throughout Ayn Rand's brilliant expose of the decline of the industrialized west disguised as a novel, this is the question that pervades every page. "Who is John Galt?" is not a question, it is a smear spit out by every incompetent, every altruist, every hater of intellect who demands to know how competent men dare to be competent, how selfish men dare to despise altruism, and how intelligent men dare hold the willfully ignorant in contempt. "Who is John Galt?" is the unspoken demand by the mob that men of competence, ability and intelligence serve them as slaves. "Who is John Galt?" is the sneer muttered by stock-yard animals who cringe before the individual who denies the collectivist-altruist premise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged answer the altruist-collectivist demand for their servitude by refusing them the one thing the altruist-collectivists cannot shackle--their minds. This resistance is beautifully stated by the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, when the collectivists demand that he return to "do something" to save a world they are willfully destroying:

"We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind."

Atlas Shrugged is set in a despicable near future, one much nearer today than when the book was first published in 1957. From the beginning, Atlas Shrugged was denounced and slandered by critics from both the socialist liberal appeaser and conservative Buckley-ite compromiser schools. Precisely because its theme is the role of the mind; because its scenario is a world increasingly of, by, and for the mindless; because it illustrates so beautifully the types of ideologies that lead to power blackouts in New York City and the creativity that leads to the discovery of new types of energy; because it predicted events and policies that have occurred since, and because it is the story of the most intractable of resisters on strike against those very ideologies, events and policies that are choking the life out of us today--this book is not dated. Indeed, it is prophetic. Atlas Shrugged is coming of age with a vengeance.

Throughout the novel, John Galt, defying every disgusting premise of altruism and collectivism travels the country on a mission of sedition to recruit true capitalists to his strike. In response to demands that he return with "the men of the mind" he defiantly states:

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind."

As with any legitimate work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged projects an ideal. So why would the ideal productive genius, Francisco d'Anconia, destroy his copper mines and become a useless playboy? Why would a brilliant young philosopher, Ragnar Danneskjold, sail the high seas as a pirate, waylaying ships transporting looted capital to various "People's States"? Why would the most brilliant of them all, John Galt, whose greatest invention is looted by the unworthy heirs to the once-great company he worked for, wage a clandestine war against the world by removing the men most hated by it? Why would the heroine, Dagny Taggart, after struggling against the combined efforts of the world to destroy her transcontinental railroad, vow to kill this man, and upon breaching the strikers' security, meet him and fall in love with him?

And what kind of new ideology would they forge from the ashes of two thousand years of mysticism, altruism and collectivism? What will be the greatest gift they give to the world, they, the ideal who are only concerned with themselves? This is their gift:

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU."

Atlas Shrugged is a long book, a great read for a long winter. But be warned; Atlas Shrugged is much like these pages it is reviewed on, because not everyone can handle it, and not everyone would like for you to read it. In spite of that, it is proper that Atlas Shrugged repeatedly tops the Book of the Month Club's bestseller list, because the type of person who reads this book is the type who makes his decisions on his own, for his own reasons, and for his own benefit.

If you have reason to seek a real literary masterpiece, and if you think you can benefit from a genuine ideological challenge, follow the tale of a few great men and women in a mindless world of "People's States" and cringing appeasers, as they launch the ultimate resistance movement for the ultimate reason, and stop the motor of the world.

Atlas Shrugged will reward you like no other book known to this reviewer. It will do so with entertainment, suspense, one hell of a premise, and a few years worth of things to think about.

But don't take my word for it. Judge for yourself.

Atlas Shrugged may be ordered from: Second Renaissance Books, 143 West St/PO Box 1988, New Milford, CT 06776. 1-800-729-6149 (orders only).

A Comment On The News

2008-11-08T14:40:00.000-08:00

Even before our newly anointed God-King has been enthroned there are open calls on internet sites such as Facebook to impeach him for offenses against the Constitution.

It is not going to happen.

Ever.

Barring a major, and by major I mean extinction event, die-off of the membership of the House and Senate and mass replacement of those members by patriots it simply isn't going to happen.

Furthermore I fully expect that the use of Chicago style election tactics on a national level, as well as the tightening of controls on the media by our Leftist overlords, will effectively prevent the devoutly wished for change of party control in the 2010 midterm elections.

Power is Life for the Left. The new Democratic Party Nomenklatura are not going to voluntarily give it up. Especially if there is the reasonable expectation of being prosecuted for the abuse of it.

The best that we as citizens can do under the present circumstances is to gather evidence and line up witnesses for a Decommunization Tribunal after the dust from the coming civil war settles down.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
_