Wednesday, August 17, 2016

TOWR sends: Leaderless Resistance

Revisiting a Co-Opted Concept

In 1992, white supremacist and former KKK leader Louis Beam wrote an article for his fringe publication The Seditionist titled “Leaderless Resistance.” (We will not link to Beam’s work or to any of the sites that feature it.) Though the concept was not originally his, he popularized the idea and in doing so, he became inexorably linked with the phrase. A simple web search shows that Beam’s name is as synonymous with that concept as the brand Kleenex is to facial tissue. Interestingly enough, leaderless resistance was initially designed by an intelligence officer to fight Communism. Beam simply co-opted and adapted the idea.

Beam’s politics and belief system, however, are the antithesis of liberty and what we as three-percenters believe; no patriot who identifies with the III% or with the concept of liberty could ever view white supremacy doctrine as anything less than horrifying. In addition, Beam’s quest for government overthrow goes against the III% Creed.

In short, there is nothing about Louis Beam’s white supremacist, anti-government philosophy, doctrine, or belief system that we identify with in any form or fashion.

To make it even more clear:
  • TOWR does not advocate or agree with the armed “preemptive” overthrow of government.
  • TOWR does not advocate or agree with the “first strike” concept of offensive violence toward government officials or law enforcement. In fact, TOWR will stand to defend any law enforcement officers who suffer reprisals for honoring the rights of the citizens.
  • TOWR does not advocate or agree with the targeting of innocents at any time or for any reason.
  • TOWR does not advocate or agree with the use of violence except in a defensive capacity to prevent imminent physical harm to one’s person, family or property, or the defense of innocents.
You’ve seen us use the term “leaderless resistance.” We accept that there are connotations within that many find unpalatable. In fact, leaderless resistance is seen as a concept “which encourages small, independent cells to commit violent acts.” That was not, is not, and will never be our intent.

In fact, let us repeat that. That was not, is not, and will never be our intent. In hindsight, the phrase itself does not even accurately explain what we are about; since we are just beginning, what better time than now to explain and clarify before pushing forward?

A better way of describing what we are preparing for, training for, studying for would be “open source insurgency,” along the lines of what Mike Vanderboegh wrote about in 2012.

The reason I’m so particular about allies and principles is that what we must attempt, should we ever face more tyranny from the Feds, is an open source insurgency, which is to say, many small-scale, local fights with national, even international, principles. Some call it “leaderless resistance” but that is not true. We must be led, but by principle. And only 4th Generation Warfare which targets policymakers — and policymakers only, not their families or other innocents — will win.
Leaderless resistance as explained by Beam focuses on the problems with a traditional “pyramid” leadership model. Military units (and by extension, nearly every militia unit and patriot group currently out there in the open) operate with it. The inherent problems with this model should be evident. They are susceptible to infiltration, ego, power grabs, and internal conflicts that tear them into pieces…which is exactly what the Feds want. The bigger and more public the group, the easier it is to tear apart or infiltrate and destroy. By nature, however, many patriots want to make big groups, multi-state groups, groups with hierarchies and impressive member lists and roll calls and public deployments and loud, outspoken leaders that get a lot of media attention—and want more. In fact, we were ourselves members of one of those groups…and we watched it fail for all the reasons mentioned above.

O’Ryan, writing in a comment on an SSI article in 2010, pinpointed another reason why the organized militia units are by nature ineffective:
Militia culture focuses on the kinetic activities, not the quieter domains of intelligence, perception management and clandestine operations. Most militia (and I use the term broadly) think in terms of fighting a II or III GEN war, not in terms of modern insurgency. Militias have no real influence operations or the intelligence apparatus to drive them…[…] The militias need more intelligence training and application. Low-level HUMINT, analysis, Close Target Reconnaissance and HUMINT enabled SIGINT and less talk radio. Mark Koernke is not an intelligence source and military publications are written for an audience with a large supporting infrastructure. There is plenty of information available for militias to develop really a spectacular intelligence capability, but the militias, for a variety of reasons, have not matured to this.
Because militias lack basic HUMINT capability, they lack basic HUMINT knowledge and are unable to perform counter-intelligence. There are no fine grained background checks to vet prospective applicants—ensuring that the Opposition can always stay inside their OODA loop. There is no Intelligence Preparation of the Environment to develop the intelligence fabric for operations. Because of this, the militias are always several moves behind while the Opposition is always several moves ahead. The militias cannot “detect” the Opposition let alone “finish” them.
His next words are what drive the point home.
I’ve met a few individual actors that understand this. Some have interesting military backgrounds, others are entirely self-taught and to good effect. They don’t get involved in militias because militias are a giant boy’s club with OPSEC problems. Further, militias just don’t want to learn anything that would upset their self image of modern Minutemen fighting with honor on some contemporary Breed’s Hill.
The Opposition is allot more cutthroat. Plus they do intelligence very well—as we have seen with the Oppositions use of informants (or ‘sources’ in the HUMINT lexicon).
Until the militias develop a functional intelligence capability, they will never be a fighting force.
Enter the leaderless resistance redux, or the preparation for open source insurgency—and, by the way, the purpose of the Order of the White Rose.

We are not wholly leaderless, for we are led by principles. We are not violent; we seek peace and liberty. We are not offensive, but defensive. However, we are also not a II or III Generation militia unit. We are not a Constitutional task force. We are training for whatwill be, not what was and has been before.

And we are determined to win.

Long live Freedom!


rexxhead said...

While leaderless resistance is a fine concept in principle, it's probably setting ourselves up for massive disappointment to expect that -someone- -somewhere- will not blow Mrs. Cabinetmember's brains out as an act of reprisal. Further, it is absolutely certain that the defensive, otherwise-peaceful leaderless resistance will be tarred by the act.

Teach against it, but don't expect that everyone everywhere will actually get an 'A' in the course. That's not going to happen, and you should be prepared for the fallout.

NC Scout said...


That's a pretty good summary. A while back I wrote a veiled harsh critique of the concept, citing the misconceptions behind what it is and how such a thing functions. The largest misconception lay with the 'leaderless' part- it's not leaderless at all. It is a directed, coordinated action that works in specific phases with benchmarks/gateways to the next phase. It's direction comes from the advancement towards a common goal, directed by a collective. If these fail, a movement reverts back to the prior phase, if continuing at all. Marxists do this everyday through a variety of 'causes' which are recycled at will, however maintaining many of the same actors. Your father knew this quite well.

Normally when referenced, best represented in Beam's woefully misguided work, the concept is portrayed as some sort of loose amalgamation of violent actors from which a governing entity cannot successfully fight or bring down. That's patently wrong, and simply leads to small disjointed teams going nowhere. It's also an excuse for poor discipline and erratic behavior of it's purveyors. Predictably, it leaves out the more important aspect of an insurgency, that being mass base. The Marxist understands the slow burn, the long gradual buildup, the creation of a populace from which it parasites, and the eruption of violence once certain conditions are met. Isolated incidents (the 'lone wolf' myth), followed by mass attacks (riots and flash mobs aka small-scale/tiny riots)are the first two phases of violence, done to discredit the ability of security forces, followed by open warfare. Every one of the current "spring" movements have followed this pattern, preceded by the 'color' revolutions of the former Warsaw Pact, preceded by the post-colonial 'bush wars' and so-on and so forth.

I must note that we're dangerously close to seeing the last phase play out, and as of yet, I've seen little to nothing aside from reaction as a contrary. Be that as it may, revolution and its counter are both seeded and decided by the direction of which a people wish to move- that direction has to be established around a common rallying point, be it a theme, idea, or martyr.

Bravo for posting this and keeping up the good work.
NC Scout

Kit Perez said...

You're right. It absolutely is possible. The thing is, that's also true in a military style group or anything else. Individuals act, and sometimes they act outside of good sense and/or morality, and when those people claim to be part of a larger group or concept, those who actually adhere to that group or concept end up having to deal with the fallout of their actions.

It's part of the reason why we harp on the III% ideals and principles, and are so intolerant of those claiming the moniker while not "walking the walk," so to speak. If and when someone decides to claim they're a Three Percenter while engaging in acts that are plainly against the Catechism, it's a much easier thing to say, "No, he's not one of us, and we denounce his actions because we HAVE ALWAYS stood against that conduct."

That is a lot harder to do when you have a group with a "command structure" and "officers" and whatnot. It is assumed (and Mike wrote about it himself) that personnel is policy. If you have a traditional command structure group, it's MUCH harder to claim that one of your members went rogue, especially if he was a member in "good standing" at the time of his act. If I, as an investigator, can go to the group page on Facebook and see photos of this guy at FTXs and hanging out with other see the problem. Now, on the other hand, if I see this guy was possibly part of a very small group, the members of which are not advertised, but the greater community disavows his actions both after AND BEFORE they were committed, it's a different story.

I also agree, however, that we shouldn't "expect that everyone everywhere will actually get an 'A' in the course." At the end of the day, people make choices, and many need/want the security of feeling like they're in a big group. And as long as there are big groups of people who need that, there will be people who decide that they want to be in charge of said group.

For the record, this is in NO way directed at actual militia groups. They need the structure for obvious reasons. This is talking about resistance groups--not the same thing.

Kit Perez said...

Scout you snuck your comment in between. ;)

I agree that there are many misconceptions about what LR is and how it's used or should be. Your characterization of the historical implications is also on point. What I'm trying to get across is basically that LR, as an idea, DOES work, if (as you mentioned) it's based on a theme and/or concept. The III% principles, I think, can serve as that cornerstone and/or guiding path for the movement itself.

Anonymous said...

When First Principles is the leader, the leader becomes the destination, or better yet the path to the destination. The path is what we follow, what we adhere to on this journey we call life. One thing is certain here in this, and that is that the leader will never become a tyrant, because it cannot be corrupted like mankind can be.

Allen said...

instead of "leaderless resistance" I prefer to use the term "starfish vs spider". it's a more generic, and encompasses all levels of interaction, from mild protests to armed conflict, without having to change to meet the level of hostilities.

DTG said...

“We are not wholly leaderless, for we are led by principles. We are not violent; we seek peace and liberty. We are not offensive, but defensive. However, we are also not a II or III Generation militia unit. We are not a Constitutional task force. We are training for whatwill be, not what was and has been before.

And we are determined to win.”

Ok, great! Sincerely. I agree wholeheartedly with the principles stated within the piece. There are some questions that linger, and a few blank spots that need to be dealt with, first.

Yes, principles are essential, for without them, all that is left is a feral predator whose loyalties shift with the wind and fortune. Principles guide how one executes his or her mission. Principles guide ‘the talk and the walk.’ And under these principles’ guidance, one must ask, ‘where, exactly, am I trying to walk to?’ (Yet another way of asking, “what is the end state?”) That end state provides that which will fill the vacuum left when the day is won (which is almost an impossibility without a declared end state).

So then, what, exactly, “will be” in relation to “what was” (a Constitutional Republic operated by the sound principles of the Founders that has degenerated into what we live with now)?

More succinctly, “Win what, exactly?”

It must be stated. It’s not. It’s presumed to be understood or given a generic term: “freedom.” Entirely subjective and will leave a huge vacuum, and nature abhors them.

Our stated objective (end state) must be capable of generating self-motivation that to all those leaderless, guided only by principles, 'resistance groups'/star fish/regular workaday folks toward that goal.

It's missing link that all involved are willing to fight, and possibly die for. The Founders were not fighting for 'freedom' per se. They were fighting for independent State governments free of oversight from the monarchy. They were fighting for the right of 'self-determination' or, more precisely, 'self-government,' meaning local to the ex-colony. Freedom itself, was specifically, 'freedom from the monarchy' and not the end state.

An effective end state will provide the necessary catalyst toward attaining ‘the win’ spoken of and quoted above. For if we do not have an end state objective so ingrained that our principles only allow action on those things that lead us closer to the objective, then we will wander the desert until we die (so to speak…maybe).

T. Paine said...

I could only get part of the way into this breathless pantie wringing drivel. It reads as though a total coward wrote it.
When the time comes, and by God the left is 100% committed to making sure the time does come, strong men will have to take up arms and defend themselves and the very existence of this republic from them and their brown shirts. When that happens, all bets are off. Without ROL there will be no ROE. The left is proving this EVERY. SINGLE. DAY!
Instead of pantie wringing, how about reflecting on Mattis: 'Be nice. Be polite, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.'
Remember this: The second amendment exists as the means to kill criminals and tyrants.

Anonymous said...

The Daily propaganda email I get at my work from the Dept of the Army PAO, well check this out.

Remember Micah Johnson, the Reservist who murdered the cops in Dallas? Check this OUT!!

Report shows that Army took away gun from Dallas cop
shooter Micah Johnson

(Tom Vanden Brook and Ray Locker, USA Today, Aug. 17)

A sergeant who supervised Micah Johnson, the man who
killed five Dallas police officers in July, told the Army that his gun
should be taken from him in 2014 because he posed a potential threat, according to a newly released
Army investigation. The report, finished in May 2014, was conducted after a
female soldier complained that Johnson had sexually harassed her while they were stationed

in Afghanistan and that he had stolen her underwear. Johnson knew the woman for years, and during a disagreement she recalled that he punched his hand through a car window and cut himself so badly he need to
be taken to a hospital.

"The (first sergeant) told me we needed to separate" Johnson and the female soldier "as soon as possible," the report said. "I asked if for safety reasons we should relieve [PFC] Johnson of his firearm and any bladed weapons in his possession. The (first sergeant) said that was a good idea so I had [redacted] retrieve all weapons." Johnson
killed five Dallas police officers on July 7 as the police were providing security for a demonstration against police violence. Local police used a robot armed with a bomb to kill Johnson.

Johnson had been sent back to the United States following the incident in Afghanistan. An Army Reservist, he was released from active duty with "an honorable characterization of service," according to the Army. When he was killed, Johnson was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, meaning that he could have been recalled to the Army if needed. Investigators wrote that they also inspected Johnson's personal belongings on May 18, 2014, and found
an M169 grenade round and a plastic bag filled with prescription medicine belonging to another soldier.

The report also found that Johnson had sexually harassed the woman, who told Army investigators that they had been friends for five years. In a sworn statement, she wrote that they had been platonic friends for five years, and that they had had "fights and disagreements in the past.



I realize it is off topic, but didn't see a recent related article so, sue me for being off topic a little bit.

Sign Me, Neal Jensen

Kit Perez said...

Allen, that book is absolutely brilliant. I highly recommend it for any and all folks using the III%/liberty/patriot moniker.

Chiu ChunLing said...

For me, the problem is that the infinite diversity of the universe only lends itself to a fairly limited number of bright-line distinctions.

For instance, policymakers. Everyone makes policy. Everyone. You cannot be acknowledged as a person in the mind of another person and not affect how that person thinks. This is a result of one of those bright-line distinctions the universe does be a person in the eyes of another person is to affect how they think. If I try to carve out an absolute distinction between people who make policy and people who don't, I must first eliminate my ability to distinguish "person" from "object".

Yes, there are strategic and tactical considerations. But those operate on the notion that there is a sliding scale of participation in making and enforcing policies (and don't think for an instant that the readiness of some to enforce policies of a certain character has an insignificant effect on whether such policies get made). You must decide whether you are forgoing a more effective attack on the making of policy.

In general, being perceived as unwilling or unable to make distinctions between those who contribute little or much towards making atrocious policy is going to limit the effectiveness of your actions. But so will making an absolute distinction which does not exist in reality. There is a difference in the guilt of those who sit in office and those who carry out their edicts and those who support both behind the scenes...but it is a difference of degrees, and failing to understand this is a symptom of failing to realize that the difference between them and us will also be a matter of degrees.

Once you fail to realize that, then you are, for all intents and purposes, on the path to becoming them, because you no longer understand it is something you need to guard against.

Anonymous said...

Chiu where would you rate a Bloomberg or Soros on your "guilt" scale?

Anonymous said...

Mike's concepts were sound. However, 'the war is already begun' claim otherwise is to dismiss government malfeasance against the citizenry at all levels, state, local and federal....from the murder of Lavoy Finicum to the grenade in the crib of the baby in GA.

Can an action taken against this corrupt government be characterized as "preemptive" simply b/c the federal, state or local government didn't tyrannically impose its will on each of us individually while it has systematically murdered our fellow citizens? That wreaks of the mindset that "if it ain't happenin' to me, it ain't happenin'"....and reaffirms Franklin's words that "We must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately" (to paraphrase). Must we wait to take action until government agents come to each of our doors? When is enough, enough?

I don't pretend to have an answer to that question. But judging by the fact that if I go grab my gear and head out the front door, I'll be the only one standing must not be "time" (metaphorically speaking, of course).

What I do know is that I cannot, in good conscience and in light of the fact that our government has already declared war on her people, condemn actions of those seeking to reign in Leviathan, provided they are targeting those responsible and not innocents.

Anonymous said...

I whole-heartedly agree with O'Ryan's 2010 analysis that much more clandestine HUMINT needs to be part of the IIIper movement...and to that end, cyber operations like those of Anonymous (with obviously very different goals) are going to be needed. Like it or not, much of the information in this day and age is contained in encrypted computer systems/strongholds. The physical location and proof of violation of law information we need to effectively wage a physical and effective propaganda 4GW campaign will need to be hacked in many instances....which is why having a skilled "computer guy" within your small fireteam's ranks who can procure such information without being traced back via the dark web, etc. could be highly beneficial....provided he/she is truly "skilled".