The Naked Face Of The Enemy

The Naked Face Of The Enemy

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/05/naked-face-of-enemy.html

I’ve considered long and hard. I’ve agonized. I’ve cast about for alternatives until all the skin has worn off my fingers. I’ve repeatedly refused to accept the implications of what my senses repeatedly told me. I simply can’t do it any longer. The evidence is overwhelming.

America is currently in a state of civil war, and has been for some time.

It’s not a conventional, easily recognized, flying-lead sort of war. That’s what makes it so deadly. That’s why the Right must win it. Should we lose, the carnage will be unimaginable.

I can practically hear what you’re thinking: “Porretto has finally flipped his wig.” Perhaps I have. That’s always a possibility. As the saying goes, there’s a fine line between genius and madness. But perhaps I’m right…and perhaps you’ve inhabited the same State of Denial in which I hid from reality for so very long.

We shall see.

* * *I have several citations this morning. They don’t stand alone. Indeed, none of them, in the absence of much other evidence would be significant at all. That’s part of what makes the ongoing hostilities so lethal: it takes a perspective both wide and deep to grasp the pattern.

The first is from the esteemed Mark Alger:

…Police and Fire are the primary fiduciary responsibilities of government. They should be budgeted first and cut last.An official was quoted as saying that the citizens he’d talked to didn’t want to raise taxes to “pay for the fire department.” How much you wanna bet he never heard any of them say, “… until you quit wasting taxpayer money on massage parlors and sweetheart deals for your brother-in-law.”

Right?

Step into my office. I’ve just heard about this bridge…

Here lately, Teh Won has been on the stump (How is it proper for a government official to campaign for particular policies?) trying to persuade us that, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit (How does that make sense?), we’re going to lose [insert laundry list of sacred cows]. Bridges, roads, armies — the latter day version of teachers, cops, firemen.

Saying nothing about bank bailouts, green energy boondoggles, union payoffs, CAGW scams, ACORN, and the rest of the treasury-looting going on…

Right.

No. What we want to do is bit-flip the selected duties of government which we are going to fund. We’re going to start with your charter, fiduciary responsibilities, like protect the borders, run the courts, maintain the roads, deliver the mail. The rest of that crap can hold a bake sale.

The tactic employed by the unnamed official (and by Barack Hussein Obama) has a long and dishonorable history. It’s called the Washington Monument Defense. It hearkens back to an incident in which, when Congress dared to reduce the rate of increase of the budget for the operation of the District of Columbia, the city’s lower levels of government immediately retaliated by closing down Washington’s most popular tourist attractions — that is, by denying non-residents access to the only features of the city they really enjoy and value. The outcry was so sharp that Congress immediately restored the full amount the bureaucracy had demanded.

Like other items with the WMD acronym, the Washington Monument Defense can bring an opponent to heel with no more than a suggestion. Consider, if you will, this passage from William E. Simon’s A Time For Truth, about the 1975-1976 New York City budget crisis:

When informed that cuts in jobs and in pay were inevitable, the municipal unions ran amok. It is only fair to say that Mayor Beame’s cuts in the summer of 1975, under the supervision of the Municipal Assistance Corporation (MAC), were deliberately inflammatory. They were calculated for the purpose of “proving” that the city needed state and federal aid. Beame dismissed nearly 5000 policemen and more than 2000 firemen (closing twenty-six firehouses) and fired nearly 3000 of the city’s 10,000 sanitation workers. The unions understood that this was an act of political blackmail. In June 1975 the firemen’s and policemen’s unions published a four page leaflet which they distributed to tourists. Titled “Welcome to Fear City,” with a lurid skeleton’s head on the cover, the pamphlet advised visitors to New York to stay indoors after 6 P.M., avoid public transportation, and, “until things change, stay away from New York if you possibly can.” In July the sanitation workers went on strike. They threatened to turn “Fear City” into “Stink City” and shouted from picket lines, “Wait till the rats come!”

Anyone familiar with New York City’s monstrously bloated government — no less so in the Seventies than today — will realize at once that Beame and the aforementioned unions were playing the Washington Monument Defense. It worked, by the way.

* * *The thrust of the Washington Monument Defense is obvious: Punish the citizenry for not conceding what the government has demanded. The original incident merely angered tourists to Washington, D.C. More recent invocations of the Defense have struck directly at the legitimate and proper functions of a government: defending the citizen against predation and maintaining peace and order in public places. Mark Alger’s piece above describes the dynamics of such incidents beautifully.

The attitude that gives rise to the Defense is one that divides the nation into “us” and “them.” The inside or “us” group is composed of those who regard their positions in government, or as beneficiaries of government, as theirs by right and not to be challenged or questioned. The outside or “them” group, against whom the Defense is wielded, is composed of everyone else — i.e., those of us who are compelled by threat of punishment to pay for the State’s activities. The Defense itself actuates the threat, albeit not in the conventional manner of indictment, trial, and imprisonment or expropriation.

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) — can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

I’ll return to this.

* * *The Washington Monument Defense isn’t the one and only weapon in the State’s arsenal, but it does outline the mindset of those inside the “us” group:

If you’re not one of us, you’re the enemy. Any promises we might have made to you are not binding upon us. Our aim is to bring you to heel.Of course, the candor of that implication doesn’t entirely serve the “us” group. Insiders would generally prefer to maintain the facade of “service” — i.e., that they’re merely dedicated public servants straining to do their duties despite the obstinacy of the “them” group about providing what they “need.” Toward that end they’ll lie so baldfacedly as to create new low-watermarks in the annals of public deceit.

But there are lies and lies. Some lies are easier than others to establish and perpetuate. Take as an example the lie that labor laws, by which Washington can descend on a firm for not having hired enough Negroes, or cripples, or brain-damaged welders of Moldovian descent, actually serve the interests of those of us who work for a living. Or the lie that the many “affirmative action” (i.e., preferential treatment by race, sex, and ethnicity) laws truly improve the prospects of minorities and the character of the American workplace.

Let it be said at once that such intrusions into properly private relationships do nothing to help their supposed beneficiaries, but rather do them a great deal of harm. The statistics speak unequivocally on this point. Indeed, the apartheid regime of pre-Mandela South Africa was brought into existence in part by the imposition of minimum-wage laws; high-ranking members of the National Party admitted that they knew what result would come of them, and steered deliberately toward it. But for a member of the “them” group to speak openly about such effects is to court counterfire of the most devastating sort.

Which brings me to my second citation: a thirty-year-old essay by the great Thomas Sowell:

In the movie, Absence of Malice,lives are damaged and even destroyed by irresponsible reporting — and the law offers no real protection. In real life as well, the most damaging, unsupported, and inaccurate statements about an individual can be written and broadcast coast to coast, without the law’s offering any meaningful recourse. Judges have so watered down the laws on slander and libel that only in special cases can you nail those who are being irresponsible, vindictive, or even outright liars.I know. As one who has taken controversial stands on various issues, I have been the target of a smear campaign for more than a year. Demonstrably false statements have been made about me in the media and positions attributed to me that are the direct opposite of what I have said for years in my own published writings. And yet a lawsuit would probably do nothing but waste months of my time, at the end of which the smear artists could slip out through one of the many loopholes — and proclaim themselves vindicated and their charges substantiated.

[Applause to Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury for digging up this stunning piece.]

The entire essay is invaluable. It should be read and digested by every American with an interest in the consequences of supposedly well-intentioned public policies. Nor is Dr. Sowell, one of the nation’s strongest and clearest voices for limited government, the only target the “us” group has attacked.

(An aside: In For The Defense, the second of F. Lee Bailey’s legal autobiographies, he narrates the legal ordeal of Captain Ernest Medina, one of the officers accused of perpetrating the My Lai butchery. A telling passage in that tale concerns Time magazine’s slanders against Captain Medina as he awaited trial, for which Bailey and Medina sued under the libel statutes. Time escaped the judgment by claiming, successfully, that Medina was a “public figure,” and thus fair game for anything, by virtue of Time’s own efforts to that effect. Enjoy the irony.)

To give the lie to an “us” group’s representations is, in the minds of the “us” group, a declaration of war — and they believe in total war, in which no weapon and no tactic are off limits. Their entire cadre of hangers-on in the communications trades will mobilize at once to destroy the target. The truth or falsity of their chosen shafts is never under consideration. Victory — the silencing of the dangerous “them” voice — is all that matters.

Compare that behavior to what totalitarian regimes have done to dissenters. Americans of the “them” persuasion aren’t yet in fear for our lives, but it needn’t remain so forever.

* * *Some years ago, back at Eternity Road of late, lamented memory, I posted the following:

Just a few days ago was the first anniversary of the judicially sanctioned torture-murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo by her soi-disant husband, Michael Schiavo. During that gruesome process, your Curmudgeon penned a cri de coeurthat, had he had his druthers, would have been read by every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth.To cut to the chase: it wasn’t. At least, it wasn’t taken to heart.

On March 2, 3, and 4 of this year, the Texas Academy of Sciences held its annual conclave, at which it awarded a certain Eric Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas, with its Distinguished Texas Scientist Award. Whatever Dr. Pianka’s achievements as a researcher or educator might be, they were overshadowed, for the moment at least, by his proposition that 90% of the human race must die:

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

Let’s get one thing straight before we proceed: Anyone who agrees with Dr. Pianka had better keep his hands where your Curmudgeon can see them.

An attitude like Pianka’s can only come from an ivory tower. One must be utterly isolated from real life and real people to contemplate their extinction with such cheerful equanimity. Yet according to the linked story, Pianka is well supplied with admirers and acolytes:

Most of Pianka’s former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like “the most incredible class I ever had” and “Pianka is a GOD!”Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience “had not thought seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting.” But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction:

“[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!” she wrote. “I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isn’t the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

“Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it’s the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation,” she said.

Of course, “this problem of overpopulation” is a completely impersonal matter. It has no bearing on the identities or futures of identifiable individuals. Were Miss McConnell asked if she expected to be among the doomed 90% or the fortunate 10%, what do you suppose she would say? Is it not likely that in her unspoken thoughts, she assumes herself to be among the architects of the annihilation, rather than an honoree?

Your Curmudgeon calls this the Commissar Complex. It puts him in mind of an anecdote from the 1848 French Revolution, when a coal-carrier scoffed at a lady of the upper classes: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now. I’ll go in silks and you’ll carry coal.” They who imagine the remaking of the world after their own preferences are like that.

Never imagine that they aren’t serious. Consider the following:

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'” — philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet….Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” — biologist David M. Graber, in review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989.

But in keeping with the “death cults” motif, your Curmudgeon must emphasize the underlying attitude: Superior individuals, disdainful of the common herd and disinclined to rub elbows with them, theorize about the management of the hoi polloi while sipping Cointreau. Such management connotes a shepherd-to-sheep relation. Certainly it would include a willingness to “thin the herd” at need — with need determined solely by the self-nominated master intellects in the closed circle.

“Kill five-billion-plus people because their continued existence offends us? Why not? Haven’t we acceded to the deaths of millions of unborn children in the name of convenience? Haven’t we argued that to let a child be born with a birth defect, or against its mother’s will, is an act of ‘wrongful life?’ Don’t we have such luminaries as Peter Singer to justify infanticide as a form of retroactive abortion? Haven’t we condemned a president and his administration specifically for liberating two nations from monsters who were slaughtering tens of thousands each year? Haven’t we argued in the highest chambers of power that ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,’ and that rocks and moss and tundra are more precious than the human lives the oil beneath them could sustain? When we argued for those things, did anyone rise to stop us? Who could stop us now?”

Gentle Reader, I wish I had preserved for your edification the batch of hate mail I received after posting that piece. It was an undifferentiated mass of viciousness. You would have thought I’d come out in favor of executing homosexuals, or discriminating against rhythm-challenged Negroes, or the designated hitter rule. But if memory serves, not one of my correspondents dared to address the central thread of Pianka’s lectures — that the death of 90% of the human race would be a good thing — even though Pianka himself has openly said so.

Why would a hate-mailer address that thesis? It’s so clearly anti-human that only someone who actively hates other people and desires their destruction would adopt it. So anyone determined to defend Pianka, but equally resolved to represent himself as a “good guy,” must treat Pianka’s thesis as “off the table.” He must assail the one who dares to express shock and horror that anyone could espouse such an idea as somehow evil.

Doesn’t that suggest that the hate-mailer finds the thesis worthy? Doesn’t it bring to mind the faux-equality of the Parisian coal-carrier — the “Commissar Complex” mindset I alluded to in the above piece?

Which brings me to my third citation: a look at one of Pianka’s more overtly genocidal fellow-travelers:

This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words. He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

He sees America as the root of the problem:

The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society as a whole:

Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

Linkola’s ground assumption is that the current penetration of environmental alarmism is an adequate popular basis for his recommendations. He’s wrong, of course; most Americans, at least, would not consent to having nine-tenths of their number liquidated and the survivors subjected to rigid totalitarian rule for any reason, much less to “save the planet.” But his aim isn’t truly to bring about mass death and totalitarian rule for the sake of the environment; it’s to use “the environment” as the rationale for mass death and totalitarian rule. Indeed, he hardly bothers to disguise it.

The disturbing things about this vile notion are:

  • That there are many, including many in the United States, who would call Linkola’s unsubstantiated assumptions of ecological crisis, like those of the aforementioned Eric Pianka, rational and defensible;
  • That the “us” group now promulgates those assumptions as dogmas beyond question;
  • That those dogmas are now the overt basis of public policies at all levels of government;
  • That anyone who gives these obscenities true coloration — i.e., as expressions of hatred and contempt for Mankind — will come in for the full vituperative, calumnious force of the “us” group, most particularly via their mouthpieces in the media.

Do you disagree? Read this, and tell me if you still do.

* * *I hope my central point hasn’t been lost among all the atrocities covered in the above. My tiny participation in the incidents I related is insignificant; I’m so far down the list of English-language political commentators that I don’t deserve personal mention. The pattern beneath these incidents is what matters.

We are at war. Not by our decision — that is, the wills of those of us in the “them” group — but by those in the “us” group. The “us” group aims at our complete, unquestioning subjugation, a campaign in which effort no weapon is to be held in reserve, and no tactic deemed beyond the pale.

Bu really, that’s only one of the major points I’d like to make today. The other concerns this snippet from an earlier segment:

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

Like most of the genuinely basic questions about social and political affairs, to ask the question — sincerely, determined to know the answer regardless of what it might tell us about ourselves — is to answer it.

We are no longer self-sufficient.
We have ceded all responsibility for the protection of our lives, our property, and peace in the streets to The State.
The State has taken advantage of that cession to reduce us ever more completely to helplessness before it — in some regions, mainly psychological helplessness, but in others objective helplessness as well.
The State has compounded our subjugation by creating numerous mascot groups, some of which are merely strident, others of which are ready and eager to use violence, in support of the State’s overall agenda.
Our response to these developments has mostly been to shrug.

Please, please, please: Interpret “the State” broadly, not narrowly. Anyone who, for any reason, wields coercive force or the threat thereof to compel obedience to some external dictum is at that time and in that place an agent of the State. Ask Massachusetts ice cream vendor Mark Duffy whether it mattered to his livelihood whether the “armed environmental police” were hirelings of Washington, or Massachusetts, or the town of Carlisle, or claimed to be “private citizens” solely interested in “the public good.” Ask him whether he would have regarded an equal or greater force that dared to stand in his defense against those “armed environmental police” as enemies, or as courageous and infinitely praiseworthy American patriots.

Then ask yourself whether, should you ever be in a position comparable to Duffy’s, such a force is at all likely to appear in your defense.

* * *Political salvation has become extremely unlikely. Yes, I meant what I said in this essay about the desirability of buying time. We need time for the general recognition of the war between “us” and “them” to burgeon and mature. But I can’t see a reversal of the trend through political mechanisms alone as plausible.

If that’s the case, we can go in only two directions from here:

  • Acceptance of de jure subjugation, coupled with as much “underground resistance” as is possible to us;
  • Open armed revolt.

We are not ready to revolt. Not only do far too many Americans still believe in “the system;” there aren’t enough of us ready, willing and able to put “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” at risk for a chance at a Constitutional restoration. Among the Constitutional movement’s weaknesses is that too many of us are in our “declining years.” Though we recognize the rumble of Juggernaut’s carriage, we’re far more inclined toward “riding it out” than taking up arms against it.

Far more Americans must grasp the enormity of our common plight before an overt uprising would have a significant chance of success.

* * *One cannot recognize a state of war yet deny that an enemy exists; the latter posture makes the former impossible. My overriding purpose in the above was to make it more difficult to deny the existence of the enemy — to some extent, to give us of the “them” group “a face to hate.”

I wish I could think of a way to end that last sentence with some other phrase. Hatred is always destructive. Indeed, it’s the engine of willed destruction itself: the conscious desire to do harm to someone else. Christians are enjoined against hatred…with one exception:

Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over (Ransom) – a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred came over him. The energy of hating, never before felt without some guilt, without some dim knowledge that he was failing to distinguish the sinner from the sin, rose into his arms and legs till he felt they were pillars of burning blood. What was before him appeared no longer a creature of corrupted will. It was corruption itself to which will was attached only as an instrument. Ages ago it had been a Person: but the ruins of personality now survived in it only at the disposal of a furious self-exiled negation. It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for. As a boy with an axe rejoices on finding a tree, or a boy with a box of coloured chalks rejoices on finding a pile of perfectly white paper, so he rejoiced in the perfect congruity between his emotion and its object.

Elwin Ransom’s Adversary was already damned. We cannot wish for — certainly not labor for — the damnation of the “us” group; that’s theological hatred, hatred unto eternity, which is the worst of all kinds. But we can ardently desire their downfall and disgrace. We must look upon their faces, not merely as a group but as individuals, dispel the notion that they’re simply “misguided,” acknowledge the enmity between us, and respond to their ill-concealed desire for our subjugation with a confident, justified desire for their ruin. More, until we allow ourselves to do so, we will make no headway at restoring liberty and justice to these United States.

Questions/Observations For PATCONs and Other ‘Continuity of Freedom’ Operations

Questions/Observations For PATCONs and Other ‘Continuity of Freedom’ Operations


As commented here:

Why dont we stop the circle jerk for a minute and ask some questions?

I had planned to talk about this at our PATCON but what the fuck now is as good a time as any.

Lets divide the terrain into three segments:
– Urban
– Suburban
– Rural

Now as have said in other posts where do most of us live?

Urban and Suburban. That’s most of the US not FREEFOR specifically.

Look at the voting for those terrain types and this will give you a good idea of the political ideology predominate in these areas.

We can condense this down simplistically into the following

Urban = progressive Free Shit Army and the top ruling elitist
Suburban = mix of all groups
Rural = conservative to libertarian small government types

Now this is not a scientific survey it’s a generalization.

If you look at this terrain and the inhabitants you can begin to formulate an assessment. The Urban inhabitants cannot be convinced that their positions are wrong. They do not put any weight into the immorality of government purposes and methods. The Rural inhabitants don’t need to be convinced because even though many of them do leech off of others via farm subsidies and such when those dry up they will be just fine getting along on their own. It is the suburban inhabitants that must be convinced that the current system is unsustainable. They must be convinced to get off the fence and make the changes that need to be made. When the battle lines are drawn they will fall right in the middle of that suburban metro area on a house to house basis.

So how do we address the fence sitters?

We must demonstrate to them that the government does not have their best interests in mind. We must demonstrate that government only has the power that we let it have over us. That is our strategic goal. To clearly define the illegitimacy of government. The second strategic goal is to replace that government with a system that more closely shelters the classic liberties of the citizens. A system founded on the values of the DoI.

Those are broad strategic goals and from here on out it has to be a little more specific to your AO.

The Operational constraints that you stay within are to focus activity to achieve the strategic goals. Currently those constraints should be limited to Sustainment and Shaping operations. They should prohibit the initiation of deadly force (combat operations). These constraints serve to guide the Operational goals since FREEFOR has no upper level leadership to establish intent and the constraints.

So we can make some general operational goals that do not pertain to a specific area:
– Gather intel on local areas.
– Build networks with other local groups.
– Establish supply chains.
– Establish safe houses and a network of escape.
– Conduct direct actions that shape the battle space and support the strategic goals.
– Control the message.

That’s as far down as we can go without getting more area specific. Those operational guidelines should be used to develop the tactics in your tool box.

Right now given these constraints none of what has been discussed in this thread would be a viable response.

As I have said however we may cross the line that makes those viable tactics.

For example, let us suppose that a suburban inhabitant is falsely raided by the OPFOR. Their current philosophy is not know but FREEFOR can utilize the incident to further its Strat and OP goals. FREEFOR can begin an escalating campaign of response to the incident. Beginning with low level tactics like flyers and graffiti. As the campaign builds feedback from the local inhabitants can be judged. If sufficient outraged is built then a direct action could be undertaken towards the OPFOR that initiated the raid. If the raid was particularly violent or resulted in a death then the action taken could be violent and destructive.

Right now efforts would be made to insure that no loss of life occurs but in the future the outrage may be sufficient that those efforts could be reduced.

Okay lets discuss….

Fusion Center Locations Revealed

http://publicintelligence.net/fusion-center-locations-revealed/

in News

Location of the Arizona Counter Terrorism Intelligence Center. Photo from Bing Maps.

Public Intelligence

Since 9/11, the U.S. Government has engaged in a multibillion-dollar effort to construct a domestic intelligence network for the ostensible purpose of combating terrorism, criminal activity and violent extremism.  One of the central components of this system is the network of “fusion centers” that have sprung up around the country over the last several years.  These entities integrate local law enforcement with a state’s police force, Department of Justice, or Office of Emergency Management and are designed to facilitate law enforcement intelligence activities throughout the jurisdiction, providing federal authorities access to local information and databases, while simultaneously allowing federal agencies to disseminate classified intelligence materials to local authorities.   There are almost always federal representatives present in local fusion centers and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano has recently testified that DHS is “committed to having an officer in each fusion center.”  Most fusion centers also work with representatives of the private sector, particularly those industries related to so-called “critical infrastructure and key resources.”

Due to past examples of fusion centers vastly overstepping their original mandates, including monitoring political events, bumper sticker preferences and even constitutionally-protected protest activities, many civil-rights organizations have worked to monitor fusion centers and their activities.  However, public scrutiny has proved difficult in most cases as the majority of fusion centers operate in a highly secretive manner without revealing who works for them, what government agencies they work with or what their basic capabilities are.  Many lack websites or any sort of public presence and information about their activities is often unavailable from official sources.  There is no national authority overseeing their activities and many fusion centers even lack basic privacy policies concerning the collection of information on law-abiding citizens.  Some states have even worked to exempt fusion center activities from public records requests.  In fact, the majority of fusion centers have failed to even identify their most basic attribute: their physical location.  Instead, many fusion centers simply provide a mailing address that leads to a post office box or generic government building.  Some fusion centers do not even provide an address.

Public Intelligence has acquired a dataset that identifies the actual physical locations of nearly all of the 72 DHS-recognized fusion centers operating in the country today.  The information, which includes physical addresses, phone numbers, as well as email addresses for all of the fusion centers, is believed to have been compiled and distributed throughout the Homeland Security Information Network, a government information portal for “information sharing and collaboration between federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, private sector, and international partners engaged in the homeland security mission.”  Given the incomplete nature of information distributed previously by EPIC, the ACLU, and other groups attempting to document fusion center activities, this information is of great importance for working towards transparency in an area of domestic surveillance that remains largely unreported.

 

State Name of Fusion Center Mailing Address Physical Address Phone Number Email
Alabama Alabama Fusion Center Post Office Box 1511 Montgomery, AL 36102 201 S Union St Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 517-2660 fusioncenter@afc.alacop.gov
Alaska Alaska Information and Analysis Center (AKIAC) 101 East Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 101 East Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 265-8123 akiac@alaska.gov
Arizona Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC) Post Office Box 6638 Phoenix, AZ 85005 16212 N 28th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85053 (877) 272-8329 actic@azdps.gov
Arkansas Arkansas State Fusion Center 1 State Police Plaza Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 1 State Police Plaza Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 arfusioncenter@asp.arkansas.gov
California Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center 2644 Santiago Canyon Road Silverado, CA 92676-9791 2644 Santiago Canyon Road Silverado, CA 92676-9791 (714) 628-3024 ociac@ocsd.org
California Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center (LAJRIC) 12440 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 12440 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 (562) 345-1100 jric@lajric.gov
California Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) P.O. Box 36102 San Francisco, CA 94102 450 Golden Gate Ave., 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 (866) 367-8847 dutyofficer@ncric.org
California Central California Intelligence Center/Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center 3720 Dudley Blvd. McClellan, CA 95652 (888) 884-8383 sacrttac@sacsheriff.com
California State Terror Threat Assessment Center Post Office Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244 3741 Bleckley St. Mather, CA 95655 (916) 227-1280 ohsdutyanalyst@ohs.ca.gov
California San Diego Law Enforcement Coordination Center (SD-LECC) 4181 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 495-7200 rttac@sdrttac.org
Colorado Colorado Information Analysis Center 690 Kipling Street Lakewood, CO 80215 690 Kipling Street Lakewood, CO 80215 (877) 509-2422 ciac@ciac.co.gov
Connecticut Connecticut Intelligence Center (CTIC) 600 State Street New Haven, CT 06511 600 State Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 777-6311 ctic@nespin.riss.net
Delaware Delaware Information Analysis Center Post Office Box 430 Dover, DE 19904 1575 McKee Rd. Dover, DE 19904 (302) 739-5996 diac@state.de.us
District of Columbia Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center 2720 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20032 300 Indiana Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 481-3007 wrtac@dc.gov
Florida Florida Fusion Center P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 2331 Phillips Road Tallahassee, FL 32308 (850) 410-7645 floridafusioncenter@fdle.state.fl.us
Florida Miami Dade Fusion Center 11200 NW 20th St Doral, FL 33172 (305) 470-3880 ioc@mdpd.com
Florida Central Florida Intelligence Exchange (CFIX) PO Box 608423 Orlando, Florida 32860 6643 Hazeltine National Drive Orlando, FL 32860 ctic@fdle.state.fl.us
Georgia Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center (GISAC) Post Office Box 29649 Atlanta, GA 30359 2635 Century Parkway, N.E. Atlanta, GA 39345 (404) 486-6420 generalinfo@gisac.gbi.ga.gov
Hawaii Pacific Regional Information Clearinghouse 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96813 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96813 (800) 952-5258 pacclear@hi.hidta.net
Idaho Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center 700 S Stratford Dr, Meridian, Ada, Idaho 83642 700 S Stratford Dr, Meridian, Ada, Idaho 83642 (208) 846-7676 icic@fusion.idaho.gov
Illinois Statewide Terrorism & Intelligence Center (STIC) 2100 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62703 2100 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62703 (877) 455-7842 stic@isp.state.il.us
Indiana Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center 302 W. Washington Street Room E243 Indianapolis, IN 46204 302 W. Washington Street Room E243 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (866) 400-4432 iifc@iifc.in.gov
Iowa Iowa Fusion Center 215 East 7th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319 215 East 7th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (800) 308-5983 inthsin@dps.state.ia.us
Kansas Kansas Threat Integration Center (KSTIC) 2722 Southwest Topeka Blvd Topeka, KS 66611 2722 Southwest Topeka Blvd Topeka, KS 66611 (785) 2741503 kstic@tag.ks.gov
Kentucky Kentucky Fusion Center Post Office Box 1757 Frankfort, KY 40602 200 Mero St Frankfort, KY 40622 (502) 564-2081 fusioncenter@ky.gov
Louisiana Louisiana State Analytical and Fusion Exchange (LA-SAFE) 376A East Airport, Baton Rouge, LA 70806 376A East Airport, Baton Rouge, LA 70806 (225) 925-1978 lafusion.center@dps.la.gov
Maine Maine Intelligence Analysis Center 45 Commerce Drive, Suite 1 Augusta, ME 04330 164 State House Station Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 624-7280 miac@nespin.riss.net
Maryland Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center (MCAC) 7125 Ambassador Road Woodlawn, MD 21244 (800) 492-8477 mdwatch@leo.gov
Massachusetts Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) One Schroeder Plaza Roxbury, MA 2120 (617) 353-4328 bric.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us
Massachusetts Commonwealth Fusion Center 124 Acton Street, 2d Floor Maynard, MA 01754 124 Acton Street, 2d Floor Maynard, MA 01754 (978) 451-3700 fusion@pol.state.ma.us
Michigan Michigan Intelligence Operations Center 714 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, MI 48823 (877) 616-4677 mioc@michigan.gov
Michigan Detroit Southeast Michigan Information and Intelligence Center 28 Adams Ave E Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 976-4625
Minnesota Minnesota Joint Analytical Center Suite 820 111 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 373-2840 info@icefishx.org
Mississippi Mississippi Analysis and Information Center 1 MEMA Drive Pearl, MS 39208 1 MEMA Drive Pearl, MS 39208 (601) 933-7200 msaic@mdps.state.ms.us
Missouri KC Regional TEW 635 Woodland Ave., Suite 2105B Kansas City, MO 64106 635 Woodland Ave., Suite 2105B Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 889-6130 KCTEW@kcpd.org
Missouri Missouri Information Analysis Center 2302 Militia Drive Jefferson City, MO 65101 (866) 362-6422 miac@mshp.dps.mo.gov
Missouri St. Louis Terrorism Early Warning Group 7900 Forsyth Blvd St. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 615-4839 info@sltew.org
Montana Montana All-Threat Intelligence Center (MATIC) Post Office Box 4789 Ft. Harrison, MT 59636 2225 11th Ave Helena, MT 59601 (406) 444-1330 dojintel@mt.gov
Nebraska Nebraska Information Analysis Center 3800 NW 12th St Lincoln, NE 68521 (402) 479-4099 nefusioncenter@nebraska.gov
Nevada Nevada Threat Analysis Center 555 Wright Way Carson City, NV 89711 2478 Fairview Drive Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-0450 ntac@dps.state.nv.us
Nevada Southern Nevada Counter-Terrorism Center 6767 Spencer Street, Las Vegas Nevada 89119 6767 Spencer Street, Las Vegas Nevada (702) 828-2200 doc@lvmpd.com
New Hampshire New Hampshire Information and Analysis Center 110 Smokey Bear Blvd Concord, NH 03305 (603) 271-0300 NhspIntel@dos.nh.gov
New Jersey New Jersey Regional Operations Intelligence Center Post Office Box 7068 West Trenton, NJ 08628-0068 2 Schwarzkopf Drive West Trenton, NJ 08628 (866) 472-3365 roic@gw.njsp.org
New Mexico New Mexico All Source Intelligence Center (NMASIC) PO Box 27111 87502 13 Bataan Blvd., Santa Fe, NM 87504 (505) 476-9600 intelligence.fusion@state.nm.us
New York New York State Intelligence Center 630 Columbia Street Extension Latham, NY 12110 630 Columbia Street Extension Latham, NY 12110 (866) 723-3697 ciu@nysic.ny.gov
North Carolina North Carolina Information Sharing and Analysis Center 310 New Bern Ave. Raleigh, NC 27601 (888) 624-7222 ncisaac@ncdoj.gov
North Dakota North Dakota State and Local Intelligence Center 400 Fraine Barracks Rd Bismarck, ND 58506 (866) 885-8295 ndslic@nd.gov
Ohio Cincinnati/Hamilton Regional Terrorism Early Warning Group 2000 Radcliff Drive Cincinnati, OH 45204 (513) 263-8000 saic@dps.state.oh.us
Ohio Strategic Analysis and Information Center 2855 West Dublin Grandville Road Columbus, OH 43235 2855 West Dublin Grandville Road Columbus, OH 43235 (614) 799-3555 saic@dps.state.oh.us
Oklahoma Oklahoma Information Fusion Center 6600 N Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73116 6600 N Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73116 (405) 848-6724 fusion@osbi.ok.gov
Oregon Terrorism Fusion Center (TITAN) 610 Hawthorne Ave., Suite 210 Salem, OR 97301 610 Hawthorne Ave., Suite 210 Salem, OR 97301 (503) 378-6347 oregonfusioncenter@doj.state.or.us
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center (PaCIC) 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 sp-intelligence@state.pa.us
Rhode Island Rhode Island State Fusion Center 10 Dorrance St Providence, RI 02903 (866) 490-8477 fusion@risp.dps.ri.gov
South Carolina South Carolina Intelligence and Information Center 1731 Bush River Road, Columbia, SC 29210 (866) 472-8477 sciic@sled.sc.gov
South Dakota South Dakota Fusion Center 1302 US 14 Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-3178 sdfusioncenter@state.sd.us
Tennessee Tennessee Regional Information Center 901 R.S. Gass Boulevard Nashville, TN 37243 (877) 250-2333 tfc@tn.gov
Texas Houston Regional Intelligence Service Center 5320 N. Shepherd Drive Houston, TX 77091 (713) 884-4710 cidcdu@leo.gov
Texas North Central Texas Fusion Center 4300 Community Avenue McKinney, TX 75071 4300 Community Avenue McKinney, TX 75071 (972) 548-5537 homelandsecurity@co.collin.tx.us
Texas Texas Intelligence Center 5805 N. Lamar Blvd. Austin, TX 78752 (866) 786-5972 txdpsintelcenter@txdps.state.tx.us
Utah Statewide Information & Analysis Center (SIAC) 410 West 9800 South, Suite 370 Sandy, Utah 84070 410 West 9800 South, Suite 370 Sandy, Utah 84070 (801) 256-2360 saic@utah.gov
Vermont Vermont Fusion Center 188 Harvest Lane Williston, VT 09405 188 Harvest Lane Williston, VT 09405 (802) 872-6110 vtfusion@dps.state.vt.us
Virginia National Capital Region Intelligence Center 4100 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 212-4590 fcpd-ncric@fairfaxcounty.gov
Virginia Virginia Fusion Center 7700 Midlothian Turnpike Richmond, VA 23235 (804) 674-2196 vfc@vsp.virginia.gov
Washington Washington State Fusion Center (WSFC) Post Office Box 42600 Olympia, WA 98504 1110 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101 (877) 843-9522 wafusion@wsp.wa.gov
Wisconsin Southeastern Wisconsin Terrorism Alert Center 749 West State St Milwaukee, WI 53233 (414) 935-7767 ifc@milwaukee.gov
Wisconsin Wisconsin Statewide Intelligence Center Post Office Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 2445 Darwin Rd Madison, WI 53703 (608) 242-5393 wsic@doj.state.wi.us
Wyoming Wyoming Criminal Intelligence Center 316 West 22 Street Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-7181 klandm@dci.wyo.gov

Related posts:

  1. Fusion Centers Map, Locations, Contact Information
  2. DHS/DOJ Fire Service Integration for Fusion Centers
  3. New York Fusion Center Requests Identity of Public Intelligence Sources
  4. DoD Announces New Information-Sharing Access to Help Fusion Centers Combat Terrorism
  5. Oracle Intelligence Fusion Center Technology White Paper
  6. Florida Fusion Center Monitored BP Protests, Ron Paul Events, Code Pink
  7. North Dakota Homeland Security Fusion Center Brief
  8. Federal Highway Administration Fusion Center Information Sharing Guidebook

The ballot or the bullet

What if…..?

 

 

Stolen from Looking In The Mirror

http://ogdaa.blogspot.com/

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

Read this:

Elections & The Illusion Of Choice

Then read this:

A Non-Violent Revolutionary Proposal

Remember that the people who will be coming for you are NOT elected officials.

They are the stooges of the State, and they are paid to suppress troublemakers like you – by any means necessary.

And they will not stop on their own.

That’s the politics you need to accept and then practice.

The ballot or the bullet.

Choose wisely.

Resist.

Elections and the Illusions of Choice

The political season has unleashed its predictable frenzy, much to delight of people who make a living off it. But to what end? There are only two types of politicians who end up holding office, wrote H.L. Mencken: “first, glorified mob-men who genuinely believe what the mob believes, and secondly, shrewd fellows who are willing to make any sacrifice of conviction and self-respect in order to hold their jobs.”

The about sums it up. The plus side of elections is that sometimes the debates, discussions, candidates and parties raise fundamental questions about what kind of society we want to live in. That’s the best we can hope for.

But there is a downside to all this hullabaloo: It gives the impression that the mere existence of the electoral process gives “we the people” a fundamental choice about the kind of state we want. This is not true. The politicians we elect are veneers or facades. They are bandits, but they do not constitute what is called the state. This goes for just about every developed state in the world for the last 200 years.

The whole election process leads people to believe that the state is in embedded in leaders. Not so. In France, this system ended with the execution of Louis XVI; in Germany, with the ascent of Bismarck; and in Russia, with the Bolshevik Revolution. The personal state died in the U.S. pretty early on, as even Thomas Jefferson discovered when he became president in 1801; he felt himself powerless to do anything.

The modern state lives outside the will of a particular leader or administration. Voting and elections only change the temporary managers, but do not touch the core of the problem.

The first book that saw through the facade was by the great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer. It is called, appropriately, The State. It was written in 1908, just as the state had begun to entrench itself deeply into the social order — more so than at any point in the previous thousand years. He described the state as the one class that dominates all others, obeying a
different law and thriving off violence against person and property. He sums up this violence in a phrase: the “political means.” He contrasts this with the “economic means,” the essence of which is voluntary human association and trade. (His book came to have an amazing influence through Albert Jay Nock’s Our Enemy, the State.)

Violence? That sounds like the opposite of elections, doesn’t it? Surely, we are exercising our free will in deciding who leads us. The truth is that the people who run for office specialize mostly in what they do best: running and getting elected as an end in itself. The real state is beneath the surface of this public theater. It is the vast army of professional bureaucrats and the mandates they carry out. It is the enforcement apparatus that oversees a gargantuan tax code. It is the Federal Register that is too large to print. It is the central bankers, their staffs, their machinery, their mandate to bail out the state no matter what. It is the hundreds and thousands of agencies that purport to control every aspect of life.

No voter ever approved any of this; no election puts any of this at risk. This is because the state itself is not subject to any plebiscite. Imagine if all the elected officials in the entire country and all those who work in their offices decided not to show up to work for an extended period. What would happen? New bills wouldn’t pass. The media wouldn’t have politics to cover. There would be a periodic scramble over superficial issues like the debt limit. But otherwise, the state would go on just as before. Nothing fundamental would change.

Nor is it the case that any of the elected officials have the power to do serious damage to this system. This goes for the president, too. They can often influence the way the state grows, but they can’t actually fundamentally threaten the apparatus itself. The longer they are in office, the less personal power they realize that they have. The reason is simple. The system is not structured to permit them to dismantle it, even if they wanted to. They are temporary managers of a ruling class, and the members of this class mostly scoff at these people, treating them like actors on a stage that the class itself owns.

The best source to gain a full grasp of the realities of the modern state apparatus is Robert Higgs’ amazing work , Against Leviathan. No contemporary author has so fully documented the vast expanse of the modern leviathan in all its permutations. He sees how welfare and warfare are not opposed to each other, but work together to form the main two activities of the modern state. He sees how central banking works to sustain the system. He understands the ways in which the state serves as a cash cow for every form of interest group, and how it works to trick
the population into believing that the state is doing good for people when it is really wrecking their lives.

Most of all, Higgs gets that the political system that so enraptures the public mind is not owned by us. It is owned and managed by the state itself and for a precise purpose: to perpetuate the idea that we have all chosen the regime that rules us. That is why there is so little difference between the political parties. As Higgs puts it, the U.S. has “two revolving factions of a one-party state farcically masquerade as authentic alternatives, the one specializing in crushing economic freedom and the other concentrating on crushing every other form of freedom.”

After the election is all over — in a grueling 10 months! — and our new managers take their seats, the talking heads will tell us once more: “The system worked.” Yes, it did work in exactly the way they want it to work. Nothing much will change. If you don’t like the results, there is something wrong with you. If you don’t like the rules, taxes, human suffering, wars, inflation, intrusions, confiscations and all the rest of the apparatus, you had better run for office, give to another candidate or otherwise throw yourself into the politics full time!

This is not choice. When we go to the grocery, we face a choice of what to buy. Or we can walk out without buying at all, keeping our money instead. Whatever the result, it is really in our hands. The electoral system is different. The store is the state. The products it offers are produced by the state. There is no real choice, only enough shadings of differences to keep us entertained. And we cannot really walk away. There is “no none of the above” and there is no keeping your own money.

Every once in a while, someone comes along who offers a fundamental challenge to the whole racket and somehow manages to attract public attention and even use the system to urge the dismantling of the system. This is what has happened with the candidacy of Ron Paul, and it is precisely why the media strains so hard to keep from reporting on him or letting others speak out for his views.

The elites are not so concerned that he can be elected. The system is fixed well enough to prevent that outcome. The real threat — and Dr. Paul understands this better than anyone — is the fundamental intellectual challenge that he offers. His book Liberty Defined contains enough radicalism and enough intellectual power to destabilize the entire structure that Oppenheimer and Higgs have so beautifully described.

The ideas in these books are far more powerful than any ballot box. They expose the illusion of choice for what it is and unmask the violence embedded in the state-dominated society, a system that no one chose but has been imposed on the population through propaganda, wars, payoffs and every manner of trickery. If there were a way to re-channel all the human energy that people put into politics into reading and thinking, the state would have finally meet its match.

Regards,

Jeffrey Tucker

Resist. Always resist.

Resist. Always resist.

http://ogdaa.blogspot.com/2012/01/resist-always-resist.html

SOURCE

“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”……..Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

I do not know the author of the following article but he has a point. Surrender is not an option and this article make a good case for that position.

The Phases of Surrender

The first phase of surrender is failing to be armed, trained and committed to fight. We are prepared to surrender when we are unprepared to resist.

The second phase of surrender is failing to be alert. You must see trouble coming in order to have time to respond. The warning may be less than one second but it will be there and it must be recognized and acted upon immediately.

The Third phase of surrender is giving up your weapons.

The last phase of surrender is up to the monsters who have taken control of your life and perhaps the lives of your loved ones. The last phase of surrender is out of your hands.

Surrender during war

During the American Revolution 12,000 Colonists captured by the British died in captivity on prison ships, while only 8,000 died in battle. Had the 12,000 who surrendered continued to fight many would have survived and they could have done great damage to the British and likely shortened the war.

Civil War prisoners were treated so badly that some 50,000 died in captivity. More Americans have been killed by Americans than by any foreign army in any war. Six hundred eighteen thousand (618,000) Americans died in the Civil War.

As many as 18,000 captured American and Filipino prisoners died or were murdered at the hands of the Japanese during the six days of the “Bataan Death March.” Had most of these soldiers slipped into the jungle and fought as guerrillas they could have tied up elements of the Japanese Army for months or years and perhaps more of them would have survived the war.

Of the Americans who actually reached Japanese prison camps during the war, nearly 50,000 died in captivity. That is more than 10 percent of all the American military deaths in the entire war in both the Pacific and European theaters combined.

In addition to the 50,000 captured Americans who died in Japanese prison camps an additional 20,000 were murdered before reaching a prison camp. If those 70,000 Americans had continued to fight, they could have provided time for the United States to build and maneuver its forces, perhaps shortening the war and saving even more lives. Some of them would have likely survived the war. If they had all died in battle their fate would have been no worse.

During the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge American soldiers were massacred by the German troops who captured them.

During the Vietnam conflict many American Prisoners Of War were tortured daily for years by the Communist North Vietnamese. Many Americans died during the process. Only Officers (Aviators) held in North Vietnam were ever repatriated. Enlisted Americans captured in South Viet Nam were routinely tortured, mutilated and murdered by the Communists. As a combat soldier and knowing my fate should I be captured, I was committed to fighting to the death. I made specific plans to force the enemy to kill me rather than allow myself to be captured.

In recent years, American troops captured by Islamic terrorists groups have virtually all been tortured and murdered in gruesome fashion. If I were fighting in the Middle East, I would make a similar vow and plan to fight to the death. Under no circumstances would I allow myself to be captured by our Islamic enemies.

Death by Government

R.J. Rummel, who wrote the book, “Death by Government” states that prior to the 20th Century; 170 million civilians were murdered by their own governments. Historians tell us that during the 20th Century perhaps as many as 200 million civilians were murdered by their own governments.

Some of the Nations where the mass murder of civilians occurred during the 20th Century include Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, The Congo, Uganda, Armenia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Nigeria, Laos, China, Cuba, Manchuria, Iraq, Iran, Biafra, Rwanda and many others. The slaughter of civilians by governments appears to be as common as not.

Most of these slaughters were only made possible by disarming the victims before killing them. Had these people resisted, their fate would have been no worse and perhaps better. Resistance is much more difficult after the government has already taken the means of resistance away from the people. Planned genocide has been the primary reason for weapon confiscation throughout history.

Jews and others who surrendered to the Nazis were murdered in slave labor camps by the millions. Had all the Jews in Europe resisted when the Nazis started rounding them up they could have made the Nazis pay an enormous price for the holocaust. The fact that Hitler confiscated guns in 1936 made resistance far less feasible.

Had the Jews in Germany resisted, the outcome may have been the same but the world would have learned about the holocaust years earlier and may have intervened. Most people would prefer to die fighting and trying to kill their oppressor, than be taken off to a death camp and starved to death or murdered in a gas chamber.

William Ayers, former leader of the Terrorist organization The Weather Underground, and close friend of Barack Obama, told his followers in the Weather Underground, “When we (Communist Revolutionaries) take over the United States, we will have to kill 25 million Americans.” He was referring to those who would never submit to a Communist takeover. Those who would refuse to deny and reject the Constitution would have to be murdered. If this sounds impossible, remember that Genocide by Government was the leading cause of death in the last Century.

Surrendering to Criminals

The Onion Field Murder in California was a wake up call to Law Enforcement Officers everywhere. On March 9, 1963, two Los Angeles Police Department officers were taken prisoner by two criminals. The Officers submitted to capture and gave up their weapons.
They were driven to an onion field outside of Bakersfield.
One Officer was murdered while the other Officer managed to escape in a hail of gunfire. The surviving Officer suffered serious psychological case, having been unable to save his partner. As a result of this incident, the LAPD policy became, “You will fight no matter how bad things are.” “You will never ever surrender your weapons or yourself to a criminal.”

Consider the Ogden, Utah record store murders. Read the book if you do not know the story. The manner in which the criminals murdered their young victims cannot be described here. Resistance might have been futile. Compliance was definitely and absolutely futile.

The courts in this country have ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone. Why do Law Enforcement Officials always tell civilians not to resist a criminal, while they tell their Officers to always resist and never surrender? Police administrators fear being sued by a civilian victim who gets hurt resisting. Furthermore, the police, like all government agencies derive their power by fostering dependence.

According to Professor John Lott’s study on the relationship between guns and crime, a victim who resists with a firearm is less likely to be hurt or killed than a victim who cooperates with his attacker. His book is titled “More Guns, Less Crime.”

The Doctor and his family in Connecticut complied and cooperated, meeting every demand of the home invasion robbers to whom they had surrendered. The Doctors wife and daughters were tortured, raped, doused with gasoline and burned alive. How did surrender and cooperation work out for them?

In another home invasion robbery, a kindly couple with 9 “adopted, special needs children,” surrendered to the robbers. The victims opened their safe and did not resist in any way. When the robbers where finished ransacking the home and terrifying the children, they shot both parents in the head several times before leaving. How did surrender and complete cooperation work out for them?

Handing over your life by surrendering to someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime against you is a form of suicide. Some survive but many do not. The monster gets to decide for you.

We have heard brutalized victims say, “The robber said that he would not hurt us if we cooperated.” Why would you believe anything that someone who is committing a crime against you says? He will be lying if he speaks. As we say in law enforcement, “If a criminal’s lips are moving while he is speaking, he is lying.” Criminals by definition are dishonest and should never be trusted or believed.

You have no doubt heard friends say, I would not resist a criminal, after all why would he kill me? This is stupid and naive. In law enforcement, we call these people “Victims by Choice” (VBC). There could be a long list of reasons why a criminal would kill you despite your cooperation.

You may be of a different race, thus a different tribe. Only members of his tribe are actually human in his mind. He may feel hatred toward you because you have more than he does. Gratification from being in a position of total power is reason enough for some.

Criminals are sometimes members of a Satanic Cult who worship death such as the “Night Stalker” in California. Eliminating a potential witness is often cited as a reason to kill a victim. Sometimes criminals simply enjoy causing suffering and death. There are people who are in fact, pure evil. I have heard criminals say, “I killed her just to watch her die.”

A victim who begs for mercy can give his attacker a tremendous feeling of power which many criminals seem to enjoy. You cannot expect mercy from someone who does not know what mercy is.

Resist!
We  each have a duty to ourselves, our loved ones, our neighbors, our community, our city, our state and our country to resist criminals. Reasoning with a thug who believes that his failures are because of people just like you is not likely to be helpful. Pleading with a terrorist who has been taught from birth that his salvation depends on murdering people like you is a doomed plan. Resist!

Resist! His gun may not be real. After you are tied up it will not matter. His gun may not be loaded. After you are tied up it will not matter. He may not know how to operate his gun. After you are tied up it will not matter. Resist!

Statistically if you run and your assailant shoots at you he will miss. Statistically if you run and he shoots and hits you, you will not die. Bad guys shooting at the police miss 90 percent of the time. The odds are on your side. Better to die fighting in place than to be tied up, doused with gasoline and burned alive. There are things worse than death. Surrender to a criminal or a terrorist and you will learn what they are. Resist!

If you resist with a commitment to win you may well prevail, especially if you are armed and trained. If you lose it is still better to die fighting in place than to be taken prisoner and have your head cut off with a dull knife while your screams gurgle through your own blood as we have witnessed on numerous videos from the Middle East, brought to us by the “Islamic practitioners of peace.”
Some who have refused to surrender.

History is filled with brave people who refused to surrender. Some of these men and woman have won their battles despite what seemed to be insurmountable odds. Others have gone down fighting and avoided being tortured to death. Some fought to the death to help or save others. Many have fought to the death for an idea or a belief.

When General Santa Ana (also the President of Mexico at the time) ordered 180 “Texacans” to surrender the Alamo, Col. Travis answered with “a cannon shot and a rebel yell.” Eventually General Santa Ana was able to build his troop strength to ten thousand. The Mexicans then swarmed the defenders and killed them all.

The battle of the Alamo delayed the Mexican Army long enough for Sam Houston to build his Texacan Army, which met and defeated the Mexican Army and captured General Santa Ana. General Santa Ana traded Texas for his life and the sacrifices of the Alamo defenders changed history.

Frank Luke was a heroic aviator in WWI. Shot down and wounded he refused to surrender when confronted by a German patrol. He killed 4 German soldiers with his 1911 Pistol before being killed. Luke was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

When his unit was pinned down by German Machine Guns and all of the Officers and non commissioned officers in his company were killed or wounded, Alvin York never considered surrendering. Instead, he attacked hundreds of German soldiers killing about 25 with his rifle and pistol and then captured 132 others by himself!

Most of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (Poland) surrendered to the German Army. They were taken off to death camps and murdered. Between 400 and 1,000 Jews refused to surrender and armed with only a few pistols, revolvers and rifles, they held off the German Army for three months before dying in battle.

During the “Battle of the Bulge,” the 101st Airborne was surrounded by the German Army and ordered to surrender. Faced with overwhelming odds, the Commanding Officer of the 101st sent this reply to the Germans. “Nuts.” The Americans refused to surrender and they stopped the German advance. Most of the Americans troops survived.

On Sept 2, 2010, 40 armed criminals took over and robbed a train in India. Some of the robbers had guns, others used knives and clubs. When they began to disrobe an 18 year old girl for the purpose of gang raping her, one of the passengers decided to fight. He was a 35 year old retired Gurkha soldier. He drew his Khukasri knife and attacked the 40 robbers. He killed three of the robbers and wounded 8 more despite his being wounded in this 20 minute fight. The remaining criminals fled for their lives leaving their stolen loot and eleven comrades dead or wounded on the floor of the train. The eight wounded robbers were arrested.

How does one man defeat 40? How does he summon the courage to fight such odds? He utilized all of the Principles of Personal Defense: Alertness, Decisiveness, Aggressiveness, Speed, Coolness, Ruthlessness, and Surprise. He was skilled in the use of his weapon. Most importantly, He refused to be a victim and allow evil to triumph!

If this one inspirational soldier can defeat 40 opponents using his knife, it would seem that we should all be able to defeat a group of armed criminals by using our firearms if we are professionally trained as was this heroic Gurkha soldier.

Final thoughts

How will you respond if you are confronted by evil as some of us have been in the past and some of us will be in the future? If you have not decided ahead of time what you will do, you will likely do nothing. Those who fight back often win and survive. Those who surrender never win and often die a horrible death. Have you made your decision? Remember, no decision is a decision to do nothing.

Napoleonic Ammunition Conservation

Napoleonic Ammunition Conservation

http://arcticpatriot.blogspot.com/

Nominee for Quote of the Decade, over at WRSA:

If the absolute best that the so-called intelligentsia of the freedom movement can come up with is “Wait behind your door, trembling, until you are confronted with an overwhelmingly superior force who has come to kill you”, we are indeed completely screwed.
 
Or those folks pushing that position are completely full of….

One or the other.

Holiday talk at an American fast-food restaurant

This is not the situation of Team Freedom- 

 

This is not the enemy faced by liberty in our nation-
This is the situation, and the enemy we face.

This is how the enemy approaches citizens now, in their homes.  This is “whites of their eyes” in practice-

So is this-

And this-

And, sadly, this-

It’s not too hard to understand, really.

Contemporary America has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bunker Hill, or an admonition based on Napoleonic tactics, smoothbore musket best practices, maximum effective ranges, and attempts to conserve ammunition.  Given the initiative and modern firearms, the “whites of their eyes” admonition would never had been uttered.  

In reality, had the defenders had sufficient ammunition, it never would have been uttered.

How foolish is it to choose to die with a full cartridge box.

The enemies of liberty are all around, and close.  You can see them on TV and on the internet.  They are “whites of their eyes” close to us every day.

This is not Bunker Hill.  Patriots are not nearly out of ammunition.  Smoothbore muskets are for enthusiasts, re-enactors, and museums.  The initiative is still there for the taking. 

Jose Guerena saw the whites of their eyes.  So did Solzhenitsyn, and millions of Russians.

Wait, if you wish, for many reason.  Just don’t wait until it is too late.  Do not decide now to give the enemy the initiative in all cases.

Do not be the lone crossbowman holding his fire until he sees the whites of the armored knight’s eyes behind his visor.  Shoot that horse down as far away as you can.  Then run, and do it again when you must.

You can see “the whites of their eyes” quite well while strapped to a torture chair.  Likewise from your cell.  You can see the whites of their eyes while standing against the wall.  There’s plenty of time for that, later.

What am I saying here, what do I mean?

I am saying that when citizens’ hands are forced, they should not limit themselves based on Napoleonic era smoothbore ammunition conservation techniques. Neither should they base their decisions on a movie.  Any movie, even Lord of the Rings.  They should base their decisions based on METT-T, the current reality, and risks vs. rewards.  Nothing else.  Cold.  Calculated. 


I am saying citizens should have already by now have made their decisions and drawn their lines.


I am saying that when “that time” comes…


Win.

Resist. 

The Pentagon is militarizing your local police force.

The Pentagon is militarizing your local police force.

Why do local police need armored vehicles and heavy machine guns?

From Business Insider…

The US military has some of the most advanced killing equipment in the world that allows it to invade almost wherever it likes at will.

We produce so much military equipment that inventories of military robots, M-16 assault rifles, helicopters, armored vehicles, and grenade launchers eventually start to pile up and it turns a lot of these weapons are going straight to American police forces to be used against US citizens.

Benjamin Carlson at The Daily reports on a little known endeavor called the “1033 Program” that gave more than $500 million of military gear to US police in 2011 alone.

“It’s kind of had a corrupting influence on the culture of policing in America,” Lynch says. “The dynamic is that you have some officer go to the chief and say, people in next county have [military hardware], if we don’t take it some other city will. Then they acquire the equipment, they create a paramilitary unit, and everything seems fine.

“But then one or two years pass. They say, look we’ve got this equipment, this training and we haven’t been using it. That’s where it starts to creep into routine policing.”