From: Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom
What do we do? And, when do we do it?
Outpost of Freedom
May 17, 2009
The following is an interview that had been planned before I ran across the blog on Fort Sumter. I sent a copy to the interviewee, an old friend of mine who has done some interesting interviews, in the past. We decided to change the interview subject to that of the blog.
OPF: Welcome back, John! I know that you read the article (blog) that I sent you, "Cannibalism, Justified Resistance, and What Happens After "Fort Sumter"". What did you think of the article?
John: Yes, I read the article. I was very enthused that the subject was brought forward. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that many people have discussed the subject, before. I know that we have discussed what various scenarios as to when and how things will begin. But, I think that the article was well presented.
OPF: Well, do you have any comments on the premise that was presented?
John: You and I have discussed the possibilities, though not quite in the context that was presented in the article. The article uses the cannibalism, and natural resistance to the thought of cannibalism as an analogy to our reluctance to move forward with the restoration of the Constitutional government. I believe that the analogy is close, though I prefer the one presented by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed", since both express the natural tendency to resist disposing of something that we have grown accustomed to. In the first instance, it is a moral prohibition that we wish not to dispose of. In the second, it is a pattern of life that we have grown accustomed to. In the first, the change would be an abrupt change -- from the moral values that we held. In the second, it is a change of a very slow nature. We have accustomed ourselves, by acceptance, of a gradual change.
OPF: So, you see s difference between the two "repulsions".
John: Yes, definitely. The abrupt change is morally repulsive. The change that Jefferson speaks to is a slow and meticulous process of change. As each step of the change occurs, we either accept or deny the change. If we accept, it becomes an acceptable condition -- though we may gripe about it. As these steps accumulate, we establish a foundation for a body of acceptance. As you pointed out in one of your articles, once we get on the bandwagon, it is very difficult to get off of the bandwagon. To do so is almost an admission of a fault of getting on the bandwagon. And, we are reluctant to admit that we erred. As we stumble along trying to rationalize why we accepted the condition, the circumstances only worsen. Each new situation compounding the acceptance.
OPF: So, does that make for an impossible situation -- one in which, since it keeps getting deeper and deeper -- our acceptance of the condition -- that we find that there is no way out?
John: No! Absolutely not. After all, the Founding Fathers found a way out. There is no reason that we cannot find a way out, also.
OPF: So, what is the way out?
John: You and I have talked about this, before. Years ago, you told me that you had found the means by which the Founding Fathers began building a base from which to operate. They established Committees of Safety. Those Committees of Safety, though at first, were only local organizations, became points of communication for the various communities, counties and provinces. This allowed for the sharing of common news, interest, and sympathies. This was far greater than one man or one small group of men. It allowed them to see that there were more -- many more -- with similar sympathies. As the grievances grew, it provided a necessity for the Committees of Safety to call for an inter-colonial Committee of Safety. That inter-colonial Committee of Safety was referred to as the Continental Congress.
OPF: Aren't we both premature for that national activity and, maybe I'm paranoid, but in this day and age, isn't there a lot of risk to organizing in such a way as to allow the government to infiltrate the Committees to mis-direct as well as to report the activities of the Committee?
John: Yes, both are possibilities. However, both can be either overcome or made nearly inconsequential. You wrote a couple of articles about leadership and informants. There is also Louis Beam's article, Precepts Of Leadership. If we are careful about whom we choose to work with, then, we will minimize the potential for infiltration. You are also aware of the Oath that was taken, not by the body, but the officers of the Albany Committee of Safety. And, if I remember correctly, you used a similar means of discrediting a government undercover agent in the Florida Common Law Court trial. Though neither of these will solve other problems, it is a start. The finish is to make sure that if you find that someone is not who they professed to be, that you dispose of them, without hesitation. I saw your post about Security Teams. This would be a start to enhance the security of any group. There is also Louis Beam's Leaderless Resistance that can be used as a model to begin taking action -- though a degree of coordination is/will be necessary. There is no way to assure absolute security, so the minimization of knowledge of other people, beyond what is absolutely necessary, is a requisite for success.
OPF: What about Fort Sumter? Is there going to be a single event? Should we create a single event? One that sets the ball rolling?
John: Gary, you know that McVeigh tried to "get the ball rolling". You saw how miserably that failed. What occurred from April 1993 to April 1995 was all talk and bluster. All of the bullshit stopped as soon as someone did what everybody claimed that they wanted to do. We spoke then of the target that McVeigh chose. Later, we talked about targets. It would seem to me that, considering the changes in abilities of both the government and of the Patriots, and the changes in the times, that we will not have another Lexington and Concord. The government moves too quickly and makes it almost impossible to respond timely. They learned, at Waco, that they needed to move in and get the job done. We learned, at Waco, that the government will do whatever they want to do. Waco removed the Lexington scenario from the realm of possibility.
OPF: So, what is the next step?
John: Well, the bombing of the Murrah Building didn't force the government to move on the Patriots. I would think that they know that they have to be very cautious in what they do. I would think that a wide front would be to our advantage. Suppose a number of events began occurring, almost daily, all over the country. It would be to our advantage because it would stretch the resources of the government. Our resources are already spread all over the country. I would guess that the government has some pretty sharp -- think standing up -- sort of people, but from my experience, that is not true of most of their people. They also have a bureaucracy to contend with. There is not much that they can do without permission. That is to our advantage. If those events began occurring all over the country, the M.O'.s (Modus Operandi) would be different, as each, say, cell, would be doing things the way that they developed them. The targets would be different, or the same, but the occurrences would be more random than predictable. There are probably some other creative ideas that would make it even more difficult for the government to really get a handle on what was happening. It would take a while for them to get a grasp, and, hopefully, during that period, other Patriots would pick up the ball and get it rolling in their area.
OPF: Wait, what kind of actions are we talking about?
John: Well, we alluded to some in the other interviews. Let's carefully get down to specifics. Would a husband and father want to continue a job that had great personal risk? If that job was such that every day, when he left the house, his wife, his children and even himself wondered if he would come home that evening. There are many jobs in this country that support the government and its evils. Probably, quite often, some of the people doing those jobs don't realize what effect it has on our Liberty and Freedom. They either never thought of it, or, were brought up in government schools to believe that it is a job that must be done. I believe that this was true in Germany in the thirties. I believe that it is true for almost all of the jobs that might be potential targets in this country. That doesn't matter. If the Germans were to stop Hitler, what could they have done? Once entrenched, the government expands itself, providing additional degrees of protection as it goes. We'll never know if this would have worked then, but we may find that it will work now. If the government cannot find people to fill positions of this nature, then, well, there will be nobody to do the job. This would remove the ability of the government to function in those areas of, let's say, concern.
OPF: So, you are saying that it would be best to begin killing people that fill these "concern jobs"
John: Well, I suppose that our greatest obstacle is one of taking another human life -- especially, if not in direct self-defense. That comes right in the realm of cannibalism, I suppose. It is repugnant to think of taking a life, therefore, we must wait until they try to take our life! Then, there is no sense in even continuing this interview. If we are to act only when we are directly threatened, then each of us will act either alone or in small groups, and, it will be our last act as free men. They can go anywhere, anytime. We will not know when or where they go until it is too late. We will never be able to oppose them, at least until the lines are clearly drawn and the war has begun, in an effective manner. They will pick us off, one at a time. You wrote that article (C3CM) about the identification of those who pose a threat to government. Everywhere you look, people seem to sense that those lists exist. Do you really believe that the government will have any qualms for killing you because of your beliefs -- when they decide when it is time to get rid of you? How about Vicki and Sammy Weaver, the Branch Davidians? There is no doubt that there is no reluctance on their part to take lives, so long as they presume them to be not innocent. Probably, to some of them, innocence is not a factor. To the others, it is simply a matter of accepting what they are told -- "that person is not innocent, he needs to be taken out". Therefore, innocence, really, has nothing to do with it.
John: So, can we act in the same way? Can we determine who is innocent and who is not? Why not? And, while making our determination, we should consider that those that we feel are not innocent may, as we do, honestly believe that they are innocent. I'm sure that many of the Germans who assisted Hitler in his rise to power believed that they were "just doing their job". But, aren't we more enlightened in this country? Isn't there enough information out there that most people could understand what is going on -- and decide not to be a part of it? Well, if they belong to ACORN, then they know what they are. If they are out of a job and have to feed their family, they may take a job that falls into those "areas of concern". And, as unfortunate as it may be, it is reality. As in Germany, those who take those jobs have become a part of the problem. The solution, it would appear, is that those jobs must be targets, regardless of whether the person fells guilty, or not. And, yes, killing them is probably the only way to create a "discouragement" toward that particular job.
OPF: Isn't that what would be what is called a "random act of violence"?
John: Well, I'm sure that the government will try to paint the picture that way. And, I'm sure that it will be successful -- for as long as they can make it appear to be a random act of violence. Eventually, however, the pattern will become apparent to the public, regardless of how the government portrays it. Perhaps, after the government tries to cover what is happening up, and the continuance of the events becomes apparent, the public may look on what is happening in a completely different light.
John: Of course, once the program has begun, there is always the possibility of setting up a single vent -- if we choose to. A meeting of significance could be proposed and the date and location set. Of course, if we were to do this, we would need to be sure that our resources were able to deal with it, but setting up the government to attempt to 'stop' such a meeting would put us in a position, with good intelligence, to counter-attack their attack teams, long before the meeting occurred. We could mislead them as to who, where, etc., to a point that we could probably bait many of them into traps. But, that aside, there are things that can be done down the road that can go well beyond what would be demonstrated by these first efforts.
OPF: Yes, I believe we are getting too far ahead of ourselves in going there. Let's look at who you would consider to be a potential target for this initial phase.
John: Well, that article that you referred me to has a good starting point. It had an organizational chart for the Department of Homeland Security. I would surmise that it wouldn't be incorrect to consider them the modern day equivalent of Hitler's Brown Shirts. Maybe somewhere between them and the Gestapo. If you look at how many government agencies have been incorporated under the DHS wing, you can begin to see that DHS will be, in essence, in control of just about everything. That chart was prepared in 2002. You can imagine how much more has been incorporated into the DHS since then.
John: So, we can look at the chart and see what government agencies are a part of the threat. We can start out with the leadership -- the officers -- of these agencies, But, from a practical standpoint, even the janitor in the building of the agency is also a target. However, the effect will be much greater as the target sits much higher on the list of authority of the agency.
John: We also have, within each state, many people who either willingly or unwittingly are potential pawns that can be brought under the control of the federal government. You told me about the Texas Rangers being deputized by the FBI during the Waco siege. This is true of all law enforcement agencies. It is also true of all state intelligence agencies and all state revenue officers. We can go further and look at each county and city and see who, within them, would also be a good target.
John: We can look at all elected officials, especially Sheriffs, who are supposed to be defenders of our Liberty, not dupes of the government. Other elected officials may pose a problem. There is a tendency for people to feel an attachment to elected officials, sometimes even when they didn't vote for them. This gets us back to cannibalism. Just because someone got elected, they may be good guys. This is true, so it might make more sense to target only those who can demonstrably be shown to be on the wrong side. It wouldn't hurt, especially in the case of elected individuals, to make sure that some information goes out to all news outlets explaining the guilt of the person so disposed of. Perhaps there are more, but for the time being, this would be a good start. I would especially consider the safety of the team conducting these activities in deciding targets.
OPF: John, are there other possible targets -- buildings, or things like that?
John: Yes, there are other targets. We talked about McVeigh picking the Murrah Building and I suggested that the Federal Reserve Banks (not the member banks, because they have people's money in them and hold an attachment), but the Twelve Federal Reserve District Banks. Eventually, the ultimatum that we discussed could be sent to them. There are also other government buildings. Any government building should be considered a possible target. Based upon the reaction to Oklahoma City, I would suggest that these be nighttime only targets. You and I discussed power stations, a few months ago, but you passed back what someone had written about the effect that it would have on people. I agree, however, there are transformer stations that are isolated and serve primarily government operations. Thos transformer stations would be good targets, if they would have minimal, or not impact on private people. This would be true of communications facilities, also. Manholes and equipment boxes that hold fiber optic lines that serve government facilities would surely burden their lines of communication.
John: I'm sure that people can develop more targets lists. I would hope that they consider the people that have no dealings with the government so as to minimize the popular reaction to what is done. The press will surely demonize what is happening, but if it doesn't touch someone directly, they can probably be turned when the time comes. Of course, we can expect plenty of bad press at the beginning. Only when the truth gets out and the sincerity of our actions and goal becomes clear will we be in a position to expect a more popular support of our activities.
John: I can think of another group of people that might warrant targeting. This is a personal resolve , but I see it as something that has had some serious consequences on the morality of this country. Open homosexuality is undermining the moral values of this country. Now, I have had some good friends that were queers. I have nothing against them. They are all still in the closet. But, these advocates of imposing a sense of moral correctness on our children, our lives, and our laws have no place in this country. If we are to have casualties of war, I can't think of a better casualty.
OPF: Well, John, as usual, you have provided a lot of food for thought. And, you know that I will continue to abide by our rules. I want to thank you, once again, for your insights.
John: [OPF], thanks for listening. You take care.
Return to Outpost of Freedom - Today