Thursday, November 5, 2009

"Troubling portrait emerges of Fort Hood suspect"


This ain't the only thing that's troubling. For example, when's the last time a mass shooter got reported dead only to spring magically back to life? When's the last time an Army General had to reverse himself in dueling press conferences? But there are other oddities in the story by Brett Blackledge below. I know Blackledge. He used to do outstanding investigative pieces on crooked politicians here in Alabama for the Birmingham News. If he writes it, it is solid.

Mike
III

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD_SHOOTING_SUSPECT?SITE=YAHOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Nov 5, 10:22 PM EST

Troubling portrait emerges of Fort Hood suspect

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE
Associated Press Writer

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances from officials and are troubling.

For six years before reporting for duty at Fort Hood, Texas, in July, the 39-year-old Army major worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pursuing his career in psychiatry, as an intern, a resident and, last year, a fellow in disaster and preventive psychiatry. He received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.

While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some "difficulties" that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.

Grieger said privacy laws prevented him from going into details but noted that the problems had to do with Hasan's interactions with patients. He recalled Hasan as a "mostly very quiet" person who never spoke ill of the military or his country.

"He swore an oath of loyalty to the military," Grieger said. "I didn't hear anything contrary to those oaths."

But, more recently, federal agents grew suspicious.

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan's computer.

Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.

Hasan attended prayers regularly when he lived outside Washington, often in his Army uniform, said Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md. He said Hasan was a lifelong Muslim.

"I got the impression that he was a committed soldier," Khan said. He spoke often with Hasan about Hasan's desire for a wife.

On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at the mosque, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, Khan said.

"I don't know why he listed Palestinian," Khan said, "He was not born in Palestine."

Nothing stood out about Hasan as radical or extremist, Khan said.

"We hardly ever got to discussing politics," Khan said. "Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist."

Hasan earned his rank of major in April 2008, according to a July 2008 Army Times article.

He served eight years as an enlisted soldier. He also served in the ROTC as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. He received a bachelor's degree in biochemistry there in 1997.

Fort Hood

There is much more I want to know about the details of the Fort Hood attack. For now, let me make these observations:

1. Although the state-run media and our man-child president have not mentioned the fact, the attackers were both muslim and American soldiers.

2. This means that they don't get to go to Guantanamo, but to Leavenworth awaiting execution.

3. Wretched Dog called me in the middle of this and expressed the opinion (that I have also long held)that he is sick and tired of the politically correct BS of counting the killers as part of OUR body count. If the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor again, today's media would lump their casualties in with ours. This moral equivalency crap gives us both gas. How about y'all?

4. Where does the FBI get the idea (which they expressed early on) that this "is not terrorism"? Really? Whatever gave them that idea?

5. From a friend who has a son in the MPs at Fort Hood (but who fortunately was off duty and off post this afternoon) comes the news that the MPs were tasked to look for "Middle Eastern types" during the incident. This was the first clue I had that we were seeing the results of the same death cult that carried out Mumbai, 9/11 and every other attack on Western Civilization here lately. Note they weren't looking for Norwegian Lutherans.

6. If the attackers had been "Christian Identity" types, does anyone reading this doubt that their religious beliefs, no matter how sick and twisted, would not have been trumpeted by the state-run media?

7. The blood-dancers of the Brady Bunch, et al, will no doubt trot out their latest ghoulish hula about "gun control." Ignoring the fact, of course, that these were the same "Only Ones" who in their world are to be trusted with a "monopoly of violence." What is the logic, by the way, of making our soldiers sitting duck targets on their own bases by forbidding them weapons, governmental or personal? If the war they have enlisted to fight in is 360 degrees, 365 days a year and subject to no truces whatsoever, why shouldn't they be allowed to be armed instead of being crammed into a huge victim disarmament zone? Does anybody else see the wickedness of this?

Finally, let us pray for the victims and their families. These were soldiers killed in the line of duty by an insidious enemy.

Mike
III

PS: And if one of you anarchist shits gives me any grief about how they deserved it for being "imperialist storm troopers," I'm going to track down your IP address and real name and post them. I'm in no mood for your ideological purity right now.

No mood at all.

Kurdish Proverb

Kurdish woman and Peshmerga fighter.

Peshmerga, Peshmerge or Armed Forces of Kurdistan (Kurdish: Pêşmerge or پێشمه‌رگه ‌‌) is the term used by Kurds to refer to armed Kurdish fighters. Literally meaning "those who face death" (Pesh front + marg death) the Peshmerga forces of Kurdistan have been in existence since the advent of the Kurdish independence movement in the early 1920s, following the collapse of the Ottoman and Qajar empires which had jointly ruled over the area. Peshmerga forces include women in their ranks.-- Wikipedia.




When my son came back from OIF1, he brought me a Peshmerga headcovering (kufiya) which is close in pattern to the one on this guy's head above. Matt is a big fan of the Kurds. It was given to him by a Peshmerga fighter just for being an American soldier. Americans, except for Woodrow Wilson who sold the Kurds out to British and French imperialism in 1919, are very popular in Kurdistan.

Anyway, Matt showed me how to wrap it around my 7 and 3/4 Charlie Brown head and I must say I looked stylish. I keep it in my collection next to the South Vietnamese Ranger jacket.

Here's a link from 2007 about the Peshmerga: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001412.html

Anyway, I was looking through my stuff on Kurds (they figure in Absolved's final chapters)and found this Kurdish proverb.

"Mirina ser piyan baştire li jiyana ser çukan."


Literal Translation: "Death on your feet is better than life on your knees."

Damn right.

Mike
III

The Lessons of Dune Applied to the 23rd Congressional District of New York


"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." -- Paul-Muad'Dib Atreides, in Dune.


November 5, 2009

Insurgents on the Right Lose Badly

By Froma Harrop

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party had the perfect strategy for upstate New York's 23rd congressional district:

1. Support a candidate who doesn't live in the district -- in this case, Conservative Douglas Hoffman. Savage the local Republican choice, Dede Scozzafava, and hound her into dropping out.

2. Condemn the local Republicans who had picked the moderate Scozzafava as being "insiders." And have the finger-pointers be Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. (Guess no one would ever accuse them of being insiders in upstate New York.)

3. Refer to the issues that concern voters in the "North Country" district -- dredging the St. Lawrence River, building a new highway -- as "parochial." Have that term be flung by former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, now a right-wing gadfly -- and in response to distress shown by the Watertown Daily Times editorial board that Hoffman knew nothing of local matters.

4. Bring Armey into the editorial board meeting.

5. Have Palin make flashy sweeps through upstate New York, spreading voter repellant around this politically moderate district.

Put it all together, and you have the perfect strategy for turning a congressional seat that had been in Republican hands for well over a century into a Democratic seat. As recently as last month, polls showed Scozzafava trouncing both the Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Hoffman in the polls. Not an easy race for Republicans to lose, but the Tea Party nihilists showed how.

A lesson here for Republicans, and Democrats as well, is that Americans don't live on cable television or talk radio. These media invented the Tea Party movement and egg on its followers, who are angry for reasons not necessarily related to politics.

This crowd, after all, is pretty darn colorful and makes for good entertainment.
Americans live in real places, and their candidates tend to be familiar figures they have coffee with. Scozzafava had served as a mayor and state assemblywoman. She was not some cartoon character on which the opposition could safely launch its childish attacks.

No electorate approves of carpetbaggers. If any word describes what Tea-Baggers tried to pull in upstate New York, it was an outsiders' takeover of a local race.]

Hoffman clearly spent more time visiting with Glenn Beck than reading the local papers. And his Tea-Baggers were also moneybaggers. On Election Day, when Hoffman seemed to have a slight edge, the Club for Growth proudly announced out of Washington that it had dumped over $1 million into his campaign coffers.

"Hoffman's cash didn't come from somebody in Hermon or Hopkinton or Adams Center or from anywhere that cares about the country," wrote Jeffrey Savitskie, a Watertown Daily Times editor who had planned to vote for Scozzafava, but then moved to Owens. "It came from folks who know so little about the North Country that they would likely believe it if you told them Alexandria Bay was an exotic dancer."

Independents should welcome the outcome in upstate New York, not because a Democrat won, but because the American two-party system needs to offer them a real choice. It can't please them that New York state will now have only two Republicans in its 29-member congressional delegation, or that New England has none.

The Republican Party has been torn by a civil war between its establishment and insurgents on the right. The battle of New York's 23rd could be the Gettysburg that determines the winner. The right-wingers lost badly in what was a reliably Republican district.

But questions remain whether the Tea-Baggers will retreat -- and more unsettling for mainstream Republicans, who the Tea-Baggers thought they were fighting.


My reply to Froma Harrop (Yes, I swear, that's her real name.) --

TO: fharrop@projo.com

re: "Insurgents on the Right Lose Badly"

Ms. Harrop,

Your concentration upon the ingredients of the stew in NY-23 has caused you to miss the point of making it. For all the mistakes that Mr. Hoffman and his supporters made, they were successful at getting the attention of their target audience: the old bulls of the Upstate New York Club of The Dead Elephant Society, who chose their candidate without reference to the desires of the people. (And, of course, the other targets were the national so-called leaders of that exclusive club).

Now, your bias is evident by your use of the leftist gutter sexual term for the Tea Party folks, so I'll get right to the point.

May I refer you to a truth uttered by a character of Frank Herbert's in Dune?

"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." -- Paul-Muad'Dib Atreides

The Tea Party folks actually won on the only battlefield that matters nationally to them: the few inches of battlespace between the ears of the national GOP leadership. They demonstrated with the Hoffman campaign that they have the ability to bring down the Dead Elephant Society's power. Do you think that such a raw exercise of arrogance by these GOP mandarins will happen again anytime soon? Do you think that any group of the Dead Elephant Society anywhere in the country will once again try to shove their wishes down the throats of the newly-energized base?

The Tea Party contingent now has the power to destroy the GOP's hopes for recovering national power. They just demonstrated it. Whether the Dead Elephant Society is smart enough to recognize it or is too moribund to understand they must adapt and regrow a sense of principles that they long ago abandoned are the only pertinent questions.

Your mistake is that you think this is a parochial fight about "New Yaarker" politics. It isn't. It is an existential battle for what kind of country we will have at the end of the Obama era, and the essential question is whether it will be settled by politics or by violence.

If the GOP recovers its senses, it may yet be settled politically. But Americans, being a practical people, will make their own arrangements if the previous forms fail. We did it before and we'll do it again if necessary.

Food for thought while you contemplate the error of your analysis.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

My prayer for today.

Oh, Lord, grant me the strength to deal with incessant querulous anarchist commenters' jeremiads, and the time to give them justice by speed-reading them. Let my judgment be fair and my delete key be swift. Amen.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Somewhere in a bunker underneath Beijing, the PLA General Staff are laughing their asses off at this.

I know why the guy in the middle is laughing, but what about the other two Americans?

http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/03/70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F11%2F03%2F70-percent-of-young-americans-are-unfit-for-military-duty%2F

Andrea Stone

75 Percent of Young Americans Are Unfit for Military Duty

Posted: 11/3/09

WASHINGTON (Nov. 3) -- Are America's youth too fat, dumb or dishonest to defend the nation against its enemies?

The latest Army statistics show a stunning 75 percent of military-age youth are ineligible to join the military because they are overweight, can't pass entrance exams, have dropped out of high school or had run-ins with the law.

So many young people between the prime recruiting ages of 17 and 24 cannot meet minimum standards that a group of retired military leaders is calling for more investment in early childhood education to combat the insidious effects of junk food and inadequate education.

"We've never had this problem of young people being obese like we have today," said Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He calls the rising number of youth unfit for duty a matter of national security. "We should be concerned about how this will impact this overstretched Army and its ability to recruit."



Shalikashvili is among dozens of retired generals, admirals and civilian Pentagon officials who have banded together as Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids. The group, which includes former NATO commander and presidential candidate Wesley Clark, will appear with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the National Press Club on Thursday to urge immediate action to reduce dropout rates and improve the physical and moral fitness of the nation's youth.

They will cite research that shows quality early childhood education raises graduation rates by up to 44 percent and reduces the odds of being arrested for a violent crime by age 18.

Douglas Smith of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command said 2008 data shows about three in 10 youths have an initial barrier to enlistment.

Most aren't insurmountable. "If you're overweight, we tell you to come back when you've lost the weight. If you don't score well on the armed forces aptitude test, we suggest you study and take it again," he said.

Between 2004 and 2008, the Army more than doubled the number of "conduct" waivers it granted to would-be soldiers with criminal or misdemeanor records. The loosened standards proved necessary in a time of war and amid a booming economy that forced military recruiters to work overtime to fill the ranks.

The new warnings about a generation of couch potatoes comes just weeks after the Pentagon announced its best recruiting year since the all-volunteer force began in 1974. The economic meltdown and rising unemployment, combined with bigger military bonuses and benefits, enticed hundreds of thousands to enlist despite the inevitability most would be sent to war.

The plethora of would-be recruits allowed the military services to be choosier after years of taking in more high school dropouts and those needing extra physical training to meet weight requirements.

Recruiting may have gotten easier, but "the good times don't stay forever," warned David Segal, a University of Maryland military sociologist. When the economy recovers and young people are able to get jobs or can afford to go to college, the military will be faced with the same out-of-shape, ill-prepared pool of recruits as before.

"Recruiting will get tough again," he said. "The trend line is clear: The youth population is getting less healthy."

Now THIS is funny.

The bear population has grown in Kashmir in recent times

My thanks to typeay for forwarding this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8339549.stm

Bear kills militants in Kashmir

By Altaf Hussain

BBC News, Srinagar 11/03/09

A bear killed two militants after discovering them in its den in Indian-administered Kashmir, police say.

Two other militants escaped, one of them badly wounded, after the attack in Kulgam district, south of Srinagar.

The militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise - police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked.

It is thought to be the first such incident since Muslim separatists took up arms against Indian rule in 1989.

Bodies found

The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear's den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.

The dead have been identified as Mohammad Amin alias Qaiser, and Bashir Ahmed alias Saifullah.

News of the attack emerged when their injured comrade went to a nearby village for treatment.

"Word spread in the village that Qaiser had been killed by the bear," another police officer said.

A joint party of the police and army personnel went into the forest and collected the bodies of the two militants.

Police say they also recovered two Kalashnikov assault rifles and some ammunition from the hideout.

Animal attacks

Wildlife experts say the conflict in Kashmir has actually resulted in an increase in the population of bears and leopards.

Following the outbreak of the insurgency people had to hand in their weapons to police - which put a halt to poaching.

As a result, there has been a greater incidence of man-animal conflict, say experts.

There have been many reports of bears and leopards killing or mauling humans in different parts of the Kashmir valley in recent years.

Three years ago, residents of Mandora village near the southern town of Tral, beat a black bear to death which had strayed into the village.

Virgil Caine responds to survivalism and "Us versus Them."

Hi Mike,

From my perspective and having worked with resistance movements in the past and currently doing so in the REDACTED theater my points are as follows:

I see the III per’s as the force multipliers of their given AOR. They are the ODA, if you will, the A-Detachment of their local area. As you are aware resistance movements are generally comprised of three elements; Guerrilla Force, in our case the militia; the Auxiliary which are your service and support troops as well as your local tactical reserve, and the Underground which is generally comprised of in-place agents and those who live day to day amongst the occupying forces and service intelligence collection requirements etc the Underground element also generally houses the political wing of the resistance movement.

Our three per center’s are by and large focused on militia level tasks (understandably not true of all of the individuals involved) and many of them seem comfortable in that realm. Considering that many of the “units” have been in existence since the 90’s they should have their TTP’S down to the point where they can teach others in the future and in some cases support newly recruited resistance/guerrilla force members.

Survivalism for the sake of survival is pointless. In my mind surviving is part of force protection. You must preserve your force so that it can fight when needed and attain your strategic goals. That means feeding, sheltering, training, providing medical care, as well as buoying morale etc. In that sense many of the survivalist type skill sets are important though more so to your Auxiliary and Underground element than to your guerrilla’s. We want our guerrilla’s training to fight. We want our Auxiliary and Underground units prepping food, loading ammunition, gathering intelligence, governing their local areas politically, running hospitals/medical care, teaching and more or less running the underground society.

A collapse is a collapse and we must be poised to fill the gap caused by what will be in some cases a lack of governmental authority, services etc and in others be prepared to shadow govern until we overtake the enemy. We must control our areas of responsibility/area of operations and we aren’t going to let criminal gangs, enemy forces and/or disparate elements dominate our terrain. In the words of an old rebel…”yer either with us or again’ us”

In my humble opinion local militia units, operating with political allies and service and support elements must be prepared to recruit, train, and lead those not yet committed to the fight. We must also keep in mind our end state which is the re-establishment of the constitutional republic. This means keeping our future political forces honest and on task. We don’t want to exhaust ourselves during the fighting to have achieved victory, which we will, and then have the political movement take us down the wrong road. We also don’t want our war fighters governing.

Lastly, our force multipliers should have established liaison officers/elements that are currently interfacing with third party political movements, service and support personnel such as local doctors, engineers, IT personnel and the whole gamut of service and support personnel that are going to be required to run a resistance movement. The LNO individual or element doesn’t need to out himself. He can involve himself with the individuals or entities as needed though an established relationship will be easier to capitalize on in the future when you show up at the local doctors and tell him you need his services.

Overall survival and survival related tasks are important to our movement though they are a complimentary skill set not the be all, end all of what we do and why we exist. I’m not into surviving. I’m into victory and re-attaining our constitutional republic!

I’ve rushed this and hope it’s not convoluted.

Virgil sends…….


LATER, from Virgil:

Thanks, if I need to clarify anything and/or add some depth to it let me know and I will. Again, I appreciate the anonymity. We plan on addressing these issues . . . in the future and as we post the information I will share with you so that you can reach your readership and in that way we’ll be able to get more people prepared and more importantly ACTING! We need to instill in people that we are in conflict NOW.

Everyone is getting ready. Ready for what?

We are currently in conflict with leviathan. Granted it’s political for the most part and information operation/psychological operation related though it will go kinetic soon enough. I am NOT suggesting that anyone jump the gun and precipitate offensive action as like you I believe we can’t have a Ft Sumter. We need to act with moral authority when we do act and we don’t possess that authority just yet…it will come as the statists can’t control themselves and they will revert to violence to achieve their ends. This will be their undoing.

A Survivalist Discussion of "Us" and the "Them" in a Societal Collapse


Folks,

Looking for something else, I ran across this discussion on Rawles SurvivalBlog. There is a percentage of Threepers who are "survivalists" and a percent of "survivalists" who are Threepers. I have long agreed with David Brin's discussion of "post-collapse" survivalists in The Postman, believing that whatever is to be saved after the first "big die-off" will be saved by robust communities, not small groups of hideouts.

Given that the armed citizenry's job is not only to maintain liberty but to provide the basis for community defense, I think this discussion is worth repeating. The moral component as discussed by Rawles in the last segment of this is also of interest.

I am curious to know what Sipsey Streeters think of this series of articles.

Mike
III


Letter Re: Some Ground Truth--The "Us" and the "Them" in a Societal Collapse

http://www.survivalblog.com/

Mr. Rawles,

I am a retired Army warrant officer working for the Army teaching Electronic Warfare and Signal Intelligence. I only started reading your blog last week. It's addictive, but slightly disturbing.

Having worked for the Army for 27 years in a number of different failed countries I may have a unique perspective on survival that I would like to share with your readers. I believe most of the "survivalist community" is vastly underestimating the impact that other humans are going to have on their plans. Hunkering down and waiting for everyone to die off is a simplistic plan and I believe has almost no chance of working. You may be able to hide your retreat, but you can't hide the land it sits on. That land itself may become a scarce commodity if the US transitions to an agrarian economy.

Food is the key resource. Most communities are at risk because they simply don't have enough calories stored to get them through any kind of crisis. But, storage is no more than limited capital to allow people time to grow more food. Food production requires land....if your retreat is sitting on farmable land, it will be a scarce resource.

Carrying capacity of the US using non-petroleum farming techniques is far lower than most of your readers probably think. Also, most areas of the US, especially cities, don't have anywhere near enough farm-able land to go back to some kind of agrarian pattern. Without public infrastructure and modern transportation, we are going to experience a huge die-off caused mostly by starvation. In a total collapse scenario without immediate restoration of the economy, basically everyone who lives in a city is doomed unless they can take over some kind of farm land.

If you live in an area without enough farm land, you will be a "have not". Period. I don't care how much food you have stored in your basement.

Here is my key point. These teeming millions will not just starve and go away. I believe that anyone who thinks they can defend a working farm against raiders is deluding themselves.

1. People are dangerous. They are the most dangerous animal on earth. You can never lose sight of that! In almost any society breakdown scenario you can think of, you will be surrounded by starving predators that are much more dangerous than tigers. In the USA, every one of them (or at least the vast majority) will be armed with firearms. The ones currently without firearms will obtain them by any means necessary including looting government armories. These are thinking-breathing and highly motivated enemies.

2. Raiders, defined as "outlaw looting groups" may be a threat for a very short period, but I really don't see groups of more than 4-6 ever forming...they will be quickly replaced by much larger groups of "citizens" doing essentially the same things, but much better armed and organized.

An Example: A few hours after Albania's political crisis in 1998, (which was caused by a national lottery scam), almost every adult male in the country procured an AKM from government stocks. Armories were the first targets looted. I flew into Tirana packing a pistol and a sack of money, naively thinking I would be able to move around the country and defend myself. What a laugh. Everyone had me outgunned, and the vast majority of them had military training of some sort. I never got out of the capital city. Every road seemed to have roadblocks every few miles, blocked by armed local citizens.

3. Without central authority, people don't just starve and go away. They form their own polities (governments). These polities are often organized around town or city government or local churches. They may call it a city counsel or a committee or a senate. The bottom line is, "We The People" will do whatever "We" have to do to survive. And that specifically includes taking your storage goods.

4. When (not if) a polity forms near you, you had better be part of that process. If not, you will be looked upon as a "resource" instead of a member of the community. The local polity will pass a resolution (or whatever) and "legally" confiscate your goods. If you resist, they will crush you. They will have the resources of a whole community to draw upon including weapons, vehicles, manpower, electronics, tear gas, etc. Every scrap of government owned equipment and weaponry will be used, by someone. Anyone who plans to hold out against that kind of threat is delusional.

5. The local polity that forms is almost certainly going to make mistakes. Some of them are lethal blunders. Odds are, the locals will probably not have given a lot of serious thought to facing long term survival. They will squander resources and delay implementing necessary actions (like planting more food or working together to defend a harvest). They may even decide to take in thousands of refugees from nearby cities, thereby almost insuring their own longer term starvation.

A much better approach is to be an integral part of the community and use the combined resources of the community to defend all of your resources together. This would be much easier if a high percentage of the community were like minded folks who were committed to sharing and cooperating. Because any community with food is likely going to have to somehow survive while facing even larger polities, like nearby cities, counties or even state governments. Don't expect to face a walking hoard of lightly armed, starving individuals. Expect to face a professional, determined army formed by a government of some kind.

A small farming community can probably support a few outsiders, but not very many. The community will need to politically deal with outside polities or they will face a war they can't win. Hiding the fact that you are self sufficient is going to be hard. You can't hide farm land.

Defending your resources against the nearby city will be even harder. You may be able to save the community by buying protection with surplus food...if you have prepared for that. You may indeed have to fight, but stalling that event for even a year could mean the difference between living and being overwhelmed. In any case, your community needs to go into the crisis with a plan. You may be able to shape that plan if you become a community leader instead of a "resource". With Very Kind Regards, - R.J.

JWR Replies: You've summed up some essential truths quite succinctly. Your points square nicely with the scenario in my first novel ("Patriots"). It also matches my premise of gemeinschaft kampfgeist (see Link #1 below), in the context of cohesion in the "we/they paradigm." (See Link #2 below.)


LINK # 1:

http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/09/finding_a_mineshaft_or_a_gemei.html

Finding a Mineshaft or a Gemeinschaft

I've observed that survivalists tend to fall into two schools of thought: those that are loners and those that are community-minded. The loners would prefer to disappear into the wilds and essentially find a mineshaft to crawl into--somewhere they can lay low, whilst things sort themselves out, back in civilization. That is both a naive and selfish starting point for preparedness. Short of moving to the roadless interior of Alaska, it is not realistic to expect that you can find a remote rural property where you'd have no contact with outsiders for an extended period of time. We live in the era of Google Earth, where there few truly secret hideaways. I recently read that Mel Gibson couldn't buy total privacy. Even if you live off-grid, if there is a road leading to your house, eventually someone will find you.

I have only seen a handful properties in the lower 48 States that I consider truly isolated. One of them was a ranch in the Basin and Range country, about 50 miles out Lovelock, Nevada. (It was actually 15 miles east of the tiny hamlet of Unionville, Nevada, (which is a 37 mile drive out of Lovelock) but I doubt that many people have heard of it). This was a 200 acre parcel that I evaluated as a potential retreat purchase for one of my consulting clients. (Note: I can describe it here, because the client eventually selected a different ranch in another county.) The road leading into the property traversed a dry lake bed, then went through a full section BLM land on a very dusty lame excuse for a road. Then, as the road started up into the hills it would appear to a casual observer to just become a rocky trail. But in fact it was in fact drivable in a 4WD vehicle, and the condition of the road actually improved, farther up the canyon. The upper end of the property had a surprising number of trees (including some pretty cottonwoods) and a large creek. But that property was a genuine rarity. There, if they were careful about noise and light discipline, someone could conceivably build a retreat and have it go entirely un-noticed indefinitely for anyone approaching by road. (And, BTW, it would have been a terribly long way to drive into town, especially in these days of high gas prices.) But even with a retreat that is out of line of sight from any road, it would still still be visible from the air, and from Google Earth. There is no such thing as total privacy.

I can safely say that 99% of SurvivalBlog readers will never own a truly remote retreat. For the rest of us, we will be on a recognizable road, and we will have neighbors. And we will have the occasional Jehovah's Witnesses come wandering by to hand us copies of The Watchtower and extol their bad doctrine. Resign yourself to that fact. Having neighbors generally necessitates being neighborly. More about that, follows.

The German word for community is Gemeinschaft. This word describes both a community of people and their collective will. From the perspective of disaster preparedness, one of the positive aspects of community-mindedness is what the Germans call Kampfgeist (fighting spirit), or what the Boers call laager spirit. I've alluded to this before in SurvivalBlog, as a component of the "We/They Paradigm." The downside of this is the risk of developing xenophobia and racial bigotry--which I, along with most SurvivalBlog readers, abhor. But the desirable side of Kampfgeist is that unifies a community in defending itself against outside foes. Kampfgeist is most often seen in small communities, but on rare occasions it can even be seen on the scale of a metropolis, where every able-bodied citizen pitched in. This was best illustrated in the defense of Stalingrad, in World War II. The city was defended by a large portion of the local Russian citizenry. (There, there were some phenomenal manifestations of Kampfgeist. The one there that comes immediately to mind is the perhaps apocryphal creation of propagandists: As the German army advanced on the city, the employees of the local tank factory personally manned and went into battle with the very last T-34 tanks that came off the assembly line.

I have long been an advocate of setting up small covenant communities, inhabited by like-minded people. Consider my vote for Gemeinschaft, not a mineshaft. The "mineshaft" is essentially a myth. I'll have more comments on covenant communities in an upcoming article.

LINK # 2:

http://www.survivalblog.com/2007/04/charity_in_disaster_situations.html

Charity in Disaster Situations--Insuring the Cohesion of the "We"
At the risk for sounding preachy, I'd like to re-emphasize the importance of storing extra logistics so that you can be charitable when disaster strikes. Charity is Biblically supported, and makes common sense. (I strongly advise it, regardless of your religious beliefs.) When the Schumer Hits the Fan (SHTF), you will want neighbors that you can count on, not people that you fear or distrust. By dispensing copious charity to your neighbors that did not have the same foresight that you did, you will solidify them as strong allies instead of envious potential enemies. In describing communities, psychologists and sociologists often talk in terms of the "we/they paradigm". Typically, this is used in a negative connotation, such as when they describe racism. (And rightfully so--I loathe racism.) But I can see something positive in building an appropriate "we/they" distinction during a societal collapse--the distinction between your local community and predatory outsiders. Just ask anyone that has ever lived "inside the wire" at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Iraq. Those soldiers will tell you that they felt a strong cohesive bond, and were absolutely determined to repel anyone that attempted to attack their FOB. Their steadfast resolve can be summed up with the words: "They are not getting through the wire. Period." Dispensing charity helps build a cohesive "we" and draws into sharp contrast the "they." (In my view of the near future, the "they" will likely be roving bands of criminal looters. Imagine a situation like in the movie The Road Warrior, and you are inside the perimeter at the refinery. Can you see the appropriate "we/they"?)


By logical extension, you can dispense significant charity only if you have it to give. Clearly, you must stock up above and beyond your own family's needs. So, for example, if you calculate that you need 300 pounds of wheat for your family, don't buy just 300 pounds. Instead, buy 600, 900, or even 1,200 pounds. That might sound expensive, but presently you can buy 50 pound sacks of hard red winter wheat for around $7 to $8 each. About 45 pounds of wheat will fit in a plastic 6 gallon food grade bucket that costs just over $2. Or even if you pay more to buy wheat that already packaged for long term storage in buckets (from a vendor like Walton Feed), a 45 pound bucket of wheat still costs just $17.15. Beans and rice are similarly priced. Consider that extra food as a key to building a "sense of community." Even for even those of you that are non-religious, dispensing charity will be part of your "we/they paradigm" insurance. If purchased in bulk quantities, it is also cheap insurance. Don't neglect buying your family that insurance! OBTW, speaking of wheat, the threat of the wheat "super-blight" is looming. This makes it urgent for families to stock up.

Where is the Biblical support for charity? It can be seen throughout the Old and New Testaments. Remember the Bible's guidance about leaving unharvested rows of crops, to benefit "gleaners"? For example, see Leviticus 23:22: "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God." (KJV)

The Old Testament law regarding charity can be found in Deuteronomy Chapter 15, verses 7-11 (KJV):
15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
15:8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.
15:9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year [of Jubilee], the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.
15:10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.
15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

From these verses it is it clear that we will always have poor people in our community ("the poor shall never cease out of the land"), and it abundantly clear that it is our duty to help them ("Thou shalt surely give...") End of preachy mode. My apologies if this offended those of you that aren't Christians or Jews. But again, even folks that are strident atheists should see the wisdom of having extra food storage to provide for charity. It is in your own best interest.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Freddy Spencer Chapman's One Man, Three Year War Against the Japanese.

The fate of many a POW of the Japanese. Freddy Spencer Chapman kept his head, and drove the Japanese crazy for three years.

Many thanks to stas for forwarding this London Daily Mail article. It reminds me of the Forrester novel Rifleman Dodd (required reading in Sipsey Street haunts) but it has the added advantage of being true.

Mike
III

The one man army: How a Cambridge-educated botanist fought a three-year war against 4,000 Japanese troops


By Annabel Venning

Last updated at 11:12 AM on 30th October 2009

The headlights of a Morris saloon car cut through the dense blackness of the tropical night.

Driving after dark was forbidden in Japanese-occupied Malaya, and the men in the car knew that if they were caught they would face torture and beheading.

Six of the group were Chinese guerillas. But one of them was Captain Freddy Spencer Chapman, a British special forces officer stranded behind enemy lines but determined to keep fighting

Jungle soldier: Freddy Spencer Chapman pictured in Tibet in 1936

It was July 1942. Five months earlier, in what Winston Churchill termed the worst disaster in British history, the British colonies of Malaya and Singapore had fallen to the Japanese army.

Aside from Chapman, among the few British troops now left on the Malayan peninsula were the thousands of prisoners-of-war incarcerated in camps, often in horrific conditions.

If caught, Chapman knew he would be treated not as a prisoner-of-war but a spy and duly executed. Several of his ex-comrades had already been captured and beheaded.

Suddenly, out of the night came headlights. A Japanese army truck loomed towards them.

'Japun, Japun,' shouted the Chinese guerillas in panic. The Morris swerved violently and came to a halt in front of the truck.

Chapman could see they were hopelessly outnumbered: the truck contained at least 40 Japanese.

Celebrated: Freddy Spencer Chapman entered the war as a much decorated lieutenant with the Seaforth Highlanders.

But as the six Chinese dashed frantically for the cover of the roadside trees, Chapman seized his chance.

Crouching behind the Morris, he lobbed a couple of grenades into the truck before he, too, dashed towards the jungle.

His courage cost him dearly. A bullet passed through his left arm and another caught him on the side of his face. As he stumbled through the darkness, a mortar bomb exploded beside him, throwing him against a rubber tree.

With the Japanese strafing the ground with mortar and machine-gun fire, it was clear he had to keep moving.

Together with one of the Chinese guerillas, he ran through the trees as, for three hours, the Japanese raked the jungle with bullets.

The jungle camp that had been their intended destination was at least 14 miles away and Chapman and the guerilla had no water or food, no compass or a map, and only the stars to guide them.


Chapman had lost a lot of blood. Even before his new injuries, his left leg was weak from an old bullet wound, and he was frequently racked with painful bouts of dysentery.

But hour after hour he drove himself onwards, through thorn thickets and paddy swamps, down sheer ravines, up steep hillsides.

Keeping going was, he wrote afterwards, a matter of willpower: 'The capabilities of the human body are almost unlimited.'

Fortunately, willpower was a quality that Freddy Spencer Chapman possessed in abundance.

After marching all night, and much of the following day, he and his companion made it back to their temporary camp.

And it was there, in the ensuing days, that he was told of the damage he had caused to the enemy.

'It was with great satisfaction I learned my grenades had accounted for eight of them and wounded many more'.

It was not the first blow Chapman had struck against the Japanese.

In a new biography, historian Brian Moynahan recounts how the young officer successfully led a tiny resistance war that wrought such havoc on Japanese supply lines that local commanders were convinced they were looking for a 200-strong force of Australian guerillas and dispatched a force of 4,000 to catch them.

Chapman single-handedly wreaked so much havoc on Japanese supply lines they thought he was a 200-strong force.

Yet Chapman's exploits have largely gone overlooked in the history books, forgotten amid the many tales of heroism from the conflict in Europe.

That is a terrible injustice. For his story of endurance in the fetid heat of the Malayan jungle is surely one of the most awe-inspiring of the whole war.

So how did this unlikely hero end up trapped behind enemy lines?

Chapman's survival skills had been honed during a tough boyhood. Orphaned young, he grew to be solitary, self-reliant and resourceful.

He exulted in pushing himself to extremes, once encouraging his fellow pupils to hit him over the head with a cricket bat 'to see how hard he could take it.'

After Cambridge University he became an explorer, learning to thrive on danger, discomfort and exhaustion.

He joined the army at the outbreak of war, soon transferring to special forces. In September 1941, as tensions in the Far East mounted, Chapman was posted to Singapore as the second in command of a Special Training School, to prepare expats for resistance against the Japanese, should they invade.

But he found the colonial authorities dismissive. Neither Singapore, the so-called 'Impregnable Fortress', nor Malaya, protected by its thick jungle barrier, would ever fall to the 'little yellow men', they insisted.

Chapman was refused permission to train either British civilians or local Chinese communists who settled in the region and hated the Japanese since their homeland had been invaded in 1937.

It was not until Japanese troops landed in Malaya and bombed Singapore on December 8, 1941, that Chapman was finally taken seriously.

He only had time to give a crash course in guerilla tactics to a handful of volunteers before the Japanese forces were on his doorstep and he was forced to flee.

Chapman trekked for days until he was deep behind enemy lines.

Despite his training, he had little experience of the jungle environment, with its green cathedral of trees that almost blocked out the sunlight, thorns and leeches that tore into the flesh, and the searing heat that left them drenched in sweat by day, only to shiver with cold at night.

Wading through swamps, hacking his way through dense vegetation, struggling to navigate when he could barely see the sun, let alone any landmarks, he became weak as his food supplies dwindled to nothing.

His original intention had been to rendezvous with another pocket of British resistance fighters.

But when he arrived at the prearranged point, he discovered that he had been left behind - assumed lost or dead.

Undeterred, Chapman unleashed his guerilla campaign.

In the 'mad fortnight' that followed, as Chapman later referred to it, he crept through the jungle night after night to lay charges on railway bridges and roads, derailing troop and supply trains, and blowing convoys of trucks high into the air before raking them with bullets and grenades.

Chapman estimated that, together with the help of two other British officers, he derailed eight trains, damaged 15 bridges, cut the railway track in 60 places, destroyed 40 trucks or cars and accounted for between 500 and 1,500 casualties.

It was, as Earl Mountbatten would later describe it: 'more than a whole division of the British Army could have achieved'.

The risks were immense. When any of the locals who assisted him were caught, their whole village would be burnt to the ground - the inhabitants incinerated inside their houses, or shot and bayoneted to death, men, women and children.

Chastened by such endurance, despite suffering many of the jungle's ills - pneumonia, infected leech bites and blackwater fever, a variant of malaria that caused him 'frightful vomiting and dysentery, accompanied by such agonising pains across my pelvis that it seemed as if all my bones must come apart'.

When the fever was at its height, his fits were so bad that two men had to hold him down.

On another, he was gripped by a bout of malarial fever so acute that the guerillas had to gag him lest his chattering teeth give their position away to a Japanese search party nearby.

Heralded: Chapman's warfare skills earned him praise from Earl Mountbatten

Yet each time, Chapman recovered. The jungle, he later said, was neutral: 'It is the attitude of mind that determines whether you go under or survive.'

To occupy himself, Chapman studied botany - pressing flowers, identifying bird species and writing copious notes.

'I had always made a point of doing this in any country I ever visited for any length of time,' he wrote, 'and I saw no reason why the presence of the Japs should prevent me now.'

He also kept a diary, writing in Eskimo - which he had learned on an expedition to Greenland in his youth - lest it should fall into Japanese hands.

Often, he became restless and took himself off on hunting expeditions into the jungle, learning to move silently on bare feet, to catch deer with his bare hands.

He travelled to other guerilla camps and en route he lived variously with Chinese bandits, Malay tribespeople and communists.

On one such visit he was served a special banquet, with an unfamiliar meat. It was only later he learned the hideous truth.

'I was told I had been eating Jap,' he wrote. 'Though I would not knowingly have become a cannibal, I was quite interested to have sampled human flesh.'

On another occasion he fell in with some communists whose leader was, he suspected, about to betray him to the Japanese. So one night he slipped away into the jungle - unarmed, with little food and no navigational tools.

Hacking his way through the jungle tested even Chapman's immense physical and mental strength.

The heat seemed to rise up from the ground, torturing him with thirst, his heavy rucksack rubbed the skin off his shoulders, midges bit him till his eyes were swollen almost shut.

Interests: Chapman studied botany in his spare time.

Weak and disoriented, misfortune finally caught up with him: he stumbled on a Japanese patrol and was captured.

For any other man, this would have spelled the end.

But with guile and charm, Chapman persuaded the Japanese officer not to tie him up and in the dead of night he was able to wriggle out under the tent flap and escape into the jungle once more.

For six days he marched on his ulcerated, weakened legs, light-headed with fever and hunger, barely stopping to sleep.

The steep ravines and mountains tested him to the limit, as Japanese planes circled overhead searching for the British prey who had so humiliated them.

It was only when Chapman realised, to his horror, that he had been walking in a huge circle that he finally despaired.

He lay, sweating and feverish, in a jungle shelter, singing old love songs and remembering former girlfriends.

'It was an unpleasant sensation to lie there alone in the depths of the jungle, convinced that I had only a few hours to live.' He was just 36.

But the story does not end there. For miraculously, little by little, Chapman once again recovered his strength and eventually made it back to his old friends in the guerilla camp.

And in December 1943, he was overjoyed to be joined by two special forces officers, John Davis and Richard Broome, who had been landed in Malaya by submarine to coordinate guerilla activity for a planned Allied invasion.

For over a year they worked as a three-man unit, training Chinese guerillas, making contact with other resistance groups and trying desperately to procure a working radio.

At last, in February 1945, they obtained one and made contact with the British forces in Ceylon, who were at first reluctant to believe that any of them, but particularly Chapman, could possibly be alive after so long in the jungle.

A rescue plan was soon launched to bring the jungle heroes home and in May 1945, after a hazardous journey to the coast, they were picked up by submarine and taken back to Ceylon.

Chapman's heroic tale of survival was over and three months later Japan finally surrendered.

In recognition of his extraordinary achievements and endurance he was given a DSO and bar, although not the Victoria Cross that many, including Mountbatten, thought he deserved.

Yet for years after the war, Chapman felt a keen sense of despair. Having sealed off his emotions in the jungle, in peace-time he found himself tormented by memories of 'companions shot down beside me . . . the screams of defenceless Chinese women and children bayoneted to death by the Japanese'.

He married and had three sons, and a successful career as a headmaster.

But aged 64, weakened by the illnesses he had picked up in the jungle and suffering from depression, he shot himself in his study.

'I don't want you to have to nurse an invalid for the rest of my life,' he wrote in a note to his wife.

It was a last sacrifice of a courageous and utterly English hero, a man who gave every ounce of his mental and physical strength to the cause he believed in, whose extraordinary bravery and tenacity were an inspiration to all who observed him.

Perhaps only now, with the publication of this biography, will Freddy Spencer Chapman win the recognition his memory deserves.

As one SOE officer and historian said of him, his survival in such circumstances and against such overwhelming odds represents: 'Evidence of what the human body can be prevailed upon by the human spirit to endure.'

• JUNGLE SOLDIER: The True Story of Freddy Spencer Chapman, by Brian Moynahan, is published by Quercus, priced £18.99.

Bob Wright on "Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Robert J. Wright.

Bob Wright, my good friend of almost 15 years, told me of the speech below in a phone conversation recently. I found it so compelling that I asked him to write it down do I could post it. Here it is. I think you'll be impressed too.

Mike
III

While speaking at a patriot gathering in North New Mexico recently I remarked to the crowd that each had quoted a founder or one of the founding documents.

I asked them what they thought Pledging “Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor” really meant?

Lives

I asked, "how many here today were willing to say that either we win this fight or we die?" For that is what the pledge really means.

Did they realize that not only are we talking about existence on this temporal plane, but when you pledge your life that means you pledge all of the mechanics and resources that make your life what it is. Dedication to other causes, save the worship of your God, falls to the rear of the hierarchy. All other causes find themselves not only subordinate to this solemn pledge, but often co-opted to serve the cause to which this pledge was made.

Most of those who hear these words “we pledge our lives” see in their minds eye the glorious martyrdom against staggering odds, for the cause of freedom, liberty, apple pie and the American way. While some may/will make that sacrifice, most will sacrifice their lives in the service of this cause in a more tedious but no less difficult and honorable fashion.

Once you make this pledge, your life now belongs to the cause of liberty. Your decisions can no longer be based on what you want or what will take you somewhere but must now be based on one criterion alone. How will my action further the cause to which I have pledged my life? Are you ready for that?? Do you have that dedication?? And just so your decision's not too easy or casually made, understand a very ugly death may be all you will get for your dedication.

All of the Patriots present, with varying degrees of enthusiasm assured me, themselves and all there they were so prepared. In order to insure we all understood the full ramifications of that pledge I was compelled to point out that the REALITY was that when we took the pledge we took it not only in our individual name but in the name of our spouse and others. For the history of tyranny assures us the tyrant will see it in such a light.

Fortune

What does it really mean to pledge one's fortune? I think most consider the $3000 to $10000 dollars they spent buying a racy black gun and a store of MREs to have fulfilled that commitment. I suggest that such timidity in the face of the known price paid by those who made the original pledge is disgraceful.

Once the pledge is made, your fortune, like your life is now in the service of the cause to which you made this pledge. Don’t panic, no one wants the combo to your safe or the password to the ATM but…if you mean the pledge as the Founders meant it, then the purpose of your fortune is to support this cause.

Most in the Patriot circle have read the material put out by Rush Limbaugh's father regarding what happened to the original pledgers. Do not make this pledge if you do not think that kind of price is worth it. I am not just talking about money or property. The treasure that is your youth will likely be spent in this great cause. Many will find themselves losing the greatest of treasures, our spouses and children as the reality of the fierceness of the coming storm tears husband from wife and parent from child as the more timid seek distance from those who have volunteered themselves into harm's way.

Are you prepared to make this kind of commitment? Are you ready to delay the addition on the back of the house in order to fund an ammunition or food fund?? Are you prepared to sacrifice the trip to Vail, or Cabo or wherever so you can sponsor one of your High speed low drag members to one of the firearms training institutes so they can bring the most modern of technique back to you and your compatriots?

How about donating a case of ammo you have stored to the local Militia Unit? Are you able to make this kind of commitment? Are you the real Three Percenter in your group? It will take this kind of unlimited commitment to win this struggle. Our Founders knew that when they gave us this particular legacy and standard. If your commitment is not such that you too are willing to make the sacrifice of treasure of all kinds, then make not this pledge. Do not dishonor the pledge and the memory of those made by taking it with any less dedication than those who have gone before.

Sacred Honor

Honor is a word long in disuse in our modern society. But I believe that it is one of the most important words of the language. “Our Sacred Honor”. What does that mean to us, today?

I look at it like this, if I pledge MY sacred honor it means that from that time on my whole self worth and all I will ever be judged by is the success of the endeavor I have pledged that honor to. Nothing else I do will satisfy that pledge. Fail to fulfill either of the two areas discussed above and you have sacrificed this most valuable of all human virtues....honor. Sacred honor means that all others will look at you through the prism of your commitment to this pledge.

Your family and loved ones will always judge you by this pledge and your honorable fulfillment of it. Even the judgment of heaven will be percolated through the defining acts you take to fulfill this noble pledge.

You must remember that the commitments discussed here are of the most solemn and serious of nature. Not only is this pledge made to your fellow patriots, but to the majesty of Heaven as well. You have placed your entire worth on the table. Are you ready for that?

Clearly there can be no casual Patriots. One who understands the blessings of liberty and treasure them can never be casual in the vigorous defense and protection of this beloved commodity.

These are the ideas I tried to impart to them.

Bob Wright
Eunice, NM
3 November 2009

Trust my son to ask the question that gets to the cosmic truth about Mark Pitcavage.

Mark Pitcavage, ADL attack blimp.

Having read the post below, my son Matt writes from Germany this single line in response:

"How can you expect a guy who has not seen his penis since the Fonz was cool, to find truth in anything?"

Monday, November 2, 2009

Pitcavage on Oath Keepers and Threepers: ADL's Attack Blimp Strikes Again

"Anti-government" is as anti-government does.

Mark Pitcavage, resident gasbag at ADL.

I first introduced Mark Pitcavage, ADL's attack blimp, in this post back in March. Back in the 90s, I crossed electronic swords often with this puke, who used to get paid by the FBI for all the names of militia folk he could glean by trolling the Internet. Back then, this was his logo:



Now the attack blimp has delivered another pre-emptive prevarication strike on Threepers and Oath Keepers here.

Extremism

Oath Keepers and Three Percenters Part of Growing Anti-Government Movement

The Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, both part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office, promote the idea that the federal government is plotting to take away the rights of American citizens and must be resisted. The two groups are apparently trying to make inroads in the U.S. military.

From October 24-25, 2009, the Oath Keepers held their first national conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. About one hundred people reportedly attended the event. At the conference, a member of the group's board claimed that they had 2,000 dues-paying members but it's likely that the group is much smaller.

Formed in March 2009 and led by Stewart Rhodes, a Nevada lawyer, the Oath Keepers encourage members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical "orders" from the federal government. These "orders," including one "to put American citizens in detention camps," and another "to disarm the American people," echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists, who claim that the U.S. government is creating a police state. The Oath Keepers try to appeal to military and law enforcement personnel by reminding them that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic," and suggesting that now is the time to live up to that oath by resisting an allegedly tyrannical government.

The Three Percenters, formed in late 2008, are a loosely organized movement centered around an obscure, and not particularly accurate, Revolutionary War "statistic" that claimed that only 3% of the American population during the Revolutionary War participated as combatants in the war. The group asserts that they are a modern counterpart to that mythical 3% of American Revolutionary-era patriots and also represent the three percent of the population of American gun owners "who will not disarm."

Recently, the Oath Keepers posted a picture to their Web site of what they claim is an active duty soldier in Iraq wearing the group's patch on his arm. In addition to the Oath Keepers' patch, the soldier is wearing patches for the Three Percenters; one patch that reads "three percent" and another with a version of the American flag with the Roman numeral III. At least one supporter has labeled this symbol the group's "battle flag."

Although Rhodes has written that the Oath Keepers patch was not made by the group and was not worn at their urging, he claims the patch as evidence of the spread of the group's message within the active duty military. Oath Keepers plan to put together care packages that include an official Oath Keepers patch and DVD to distribute to "tens of thousands" of active duty troops between November 11 (Veterans Day) and December 15, 2009 (Bill of Rights Day).

It is clear that these anti-government extremist groups are trying both to exploit and to fan the anti-government sentiment that has grown over President Obama's first year in office, as well as to support each other's efforts. Rhodes has written supportively of the Three Percenters, while at least two participants carried the Three Percenter flag at an Oath Keepers event at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 2009. That event was staged on the same day that an anti-government Tea Party rally in the city attracted tens of thousands of people, the largest to date of the protests held against the government and Obama since he took office.


Now as far as I'm concerned, "anti-government" is as anti-government does. Explain to me how Oath Keepers, an organization dedicated to preserving the Constitution is anti-government? Anti-tyrannical-government, maybe. Anti-collectivist, surely. It is Pitcavage and his ilk who are traitors to the Founders Republic.

Now here is ADL's official bio on Pitcavage and here is the Wikipedia reference on him.

When you go to the ADL bio, be sure and note how many state and local law enforcement officers have been "trained" by this statist puke. SPLC does the same thing. Wonder where these goofy fusion center reports come from?

You will also notice from the Wikipedia entry that this police state puke is an avid military board gamer. He is no doubt a legend in his own mind.



Here he is in a recent Facebook photo:



We haven't seen Sparky the Anti-militia Watchdog lately. Rumor is Pitcavage sat on him a few years back and crushed the poor beast -- and the dead mutt is stuck to Pitcavage's ass and he still hasn't noticed.

"Sure, and isn't it the truth that we don't have to wonder what HE had fer breakfast?"

NRA General Sebastian Snowflake explains latest defeat in the Lairds of Fairfax' fighting retreat from principle.

General Sebastian Snowflake, Chief Apologist, er, ah, Public Information Officer, for the Grand Army of the Lairds of Fairfax, Electronic Battlespace Division.

(NOTE: It is important to remember in the grand scheme of things that this kerfluffle means exactly dick. However, given the evident discomfiture and crawfishing by the NRA and Sebastian over the exploding cigar which is the 23rd Congressional District of New York, I couldn't resist. ;-) -- MBV)

First, we have this announcement:

November 01, 2009

GOP ex-candidate endorses Democrat in NY race

The Associated Press

A day after Republican state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava abruptly suspended her campaign for a New York congressional seat, she announced Sunday she's endorsing the Democrat in the race — not the Conservative Party candidate favored by fellow Republicans.


Of course, most will remember that Chris Cox of the NRA/ILA endorsed Scozzafava with these words:

Based on your tested and proven record in the New York Assembly, as well as your responses to our federal candidate questionnaire, you have earned an “A” rating from the NRAPVF. On November 3, we urge our members, gun owners and sportsmen in New York’s 23rd congressional district to vote for you for Congress.


Now David Codrea here with comments entitled "Hell Hath No Fury" and Peter at WRSA here with trenchant observations about "shark jumping" heap deserved scorn upon the NRA's cynical miscalculations (called "pragmatism" by its defenders).

Of course my first reaction was curiosity about just what Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell might have to say. One of his posters, one DirtCrashr,

commented last night:

And now Scofazzile has endorsed the Democrat. Some kind of Republican, huh?


To which Sebastian stoutly rejoined, very early this morning:

Sebastian Said,

November 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am

What are you going to do, though, Jessup? If someone has a record of supporting you, are you just going to tell them to fuck off and support some unknown upstart when they seek higher office? Are you just going to cynically stay out of the whole process?

Like or it not, American politics comes to a plurality/majority liking one loser over another loser/losers. You can either get angry about that, or figure out a way to play that system to the benefit of the things you believe in. That will mean that sometimes you back a lame horse.

Politics is a whole lot like gambling. Sometimes your hand will lose, but as long as you win more than you lose, you can keep moving forward and stay in the game.


There. Now you know the logic. Which begs the question: How many of these contests has the NRA won lately? But nevermind, the point is to stay in a losing game. The Lairds of Fairfax, faced with defeat once more, will without evident shame try to "do a deal."

Thus history will record, the NRA's long, bloody "pragmatic" fighting retreat from principle continued while the real battle for liberty was left to others.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

The "Ambush of History": Thank you, Gunter Schabowski, you sleep-deprived and/or drunken apparatchik fool.

Gunter Schabowski

Folks,

As we are coming up on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I found this story in the Washington Post to be fascinating.

Gunter Schabowski is the most important East German Communist you never heard of. I had heard some of this story from a US Army intelligence officer back in the early 90s, although in his telling Schabowski was drunk on Russian vodka.

It is also a great reminder about the "ambush of history" as Sarotte calls it. You never know how rotten the foundations of a tyrannical regime are until you give it a shove at exactly the right place and time.

To me, the lesson of this story is, a. if the tyrant's minions make a mistake, take advantage of it, and b. always keep shoving. You never know when you might hit the pressure point and bring the whole rotten edifice down.

Never quit.

Never, ever quit.

Mike
III

The kill zone of the Berlinermauer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103001846.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

How it went down

The little accident that toppled history


By Mary Elise Sarotte

Sunday, November 1, 2009

BERLIN -- Once events make their passage from news of the day into history books, it is hard to imagine that they could have happened any other way. They're history, after all. And 20 years later, the fall of the Berlin Wall seems like that kind of history -- a world-changing event that we commemorate and celebrate, its heroes and villains well established, its images and significance clearly comprehended.

But the real story of the wall coming down is a lot less tidy than it may appear in the rear-view mirror. The "decision" to open the border was not a conscious choice at all. Instead of a reassuring victory for the forces of freedom, it was a chaotic and potentially violent mess. One of the most momentous events of the past century was, in fact, an accident, a semicomical and bureaucratic mistake that owes as much to the Western media as to the tides of history.

So what really happened?

In the early days of November 1989, East Germans turned out in massive street protests to demand Gorbachev-style reforms. Their dictatorial rulers tried to appease them by issuing "new" travel regulations. Though the rules suggested that there would be freedom, the fine print still included the national security exemptions that had always prevented East Germans from leaving. None of the people writing these new regulations took the obvious steps that would have been needed to open the border, such as consulting the Soviets or informing the border guards that such a move was coming. In short, there were no signs that authorities intended to open the wall on Nov. 9.

That night at 6, Guenter Schabowski, a member of the East German Politburo who served as its spokesman, was scheduled to hold a news conference. Shortly before it began, he received a piece of paper with an update on the regulations and a suggestion that he mention them publicly. He had not been involved in discussions about the rules and did not have time to read the document carefully before starting.

His hour-long news conference was so tedious that Tom Brokaw, who was there, remembered being "bored." But in the final minutes, an Italian journalist's question about travel spurred Schabowski's memory. He tried to summarize the new regulations but became confused, and his sentences trailed off. "Anyway, today, as far as I know, a decision has been made," he said. "It is a recommendation of the Politburo that has been taken up, that one should from the draft of a travel law, take out a passage. . ."

Among the long-winded clauses, some snippets leapt out: "exit via border crossings" and "possible for every citizen."

Suddenly, every journalist in the room had questions. "When does that go into force?" shouted one. "Immediately?" shouted another. Rattled and mumbling to himself, Schabowski flipped through his papers until he uttered the phrase: "Immediately, right away."

It felt as if "a signal had come from outer space and electrified the room," Brokaw recalled. Some wire journalists rushed out to file reports, but the questions kept coming, among them: "What will happen to the Berlin Wall now?"

Alarmed about what was unfolding, Schabowski concluded with more muddled responses: "The question of travel, of the permeability therefore of the wall from our side, does not yet answer, exclusively, the question of the meaning, of this, let me say it this way, fortified border." Furthermore, "the debate over these questions could be positively influenced if the Federal Republic [of West Germany] and if NATO would commit themselves to and carry out disarmament."

As NATO was unlikely to disarm itself by breakfast, Schabowski clearly did not expect much to happen that night. But it was too late -- by 7:03 p.m., the wires were reporting that the Berlin Wall was open.

Across the border, a West German television channel, ARD, reported the news cautiously in its 8 p.m. broadcast, first asserting only that the wall probably would become "permeable" soon. But for its next news program at 10:30 p.m. -- delayed to 10:42 by a soccer match -- the staff went big. Hanns Friedrichs, the moderator who enjoyed a Cronkite-like status in the country, proclaimed, "This ninth of November is a historic day." East Germany "has announced that, starting immediately, its borders are open to everyone."

The show cut live to Berlin, where its lonely correspondent failed to find drama or crowds at either the Brandenburg Gate or the Invaliden Street border-crossing point. It had been nearly four hours since the end of Schabowski's news conference, but no one was crossing or celebrating. The journalists had gotten ahead of reality -- though reality was about to catch up. East Germans, who could watch such western broadcasts illicitly, believed the news and began to gather on their side of the wall.

At the Bornholmer Street border-crossing station in East Berlin, guard Harald Jäger, on the job since 1964, had watched Schabowski on television. Dumbfounded by the remarks, he told his fellow guards that the official's words were "deranged," and he started calling around. His superiors assured him that travel remained blocked, and he and his colleagues were armed as always.

But soon Jäger and his team were busy waving back some would-be crossers who had heard the western reports. A police car arrived and an officer announced over a loudspeaker that it was not possible simply to exit, but the crowd kept swelling.

Before long, the guards at Bornholmer Street were outnumbered by thousands of people; the same thing was happening at several other checkpoints. Overwhelmed and worried for their own safety, Jäger and his fellow guards reasoned that the use of violence might quickly escalate and become uncontrollable. They decided instead at around 9 p.m. to let a trickle of people cross the border, hoping to ease the pressure and calm the crowd. The guards would check each person individually, take notes and penalize the rowdiest by refusing them reentry. They managed to do this for a while, but after a couple of hours the enormous crowd was chanting, "Open the gate, open the gate!"

After more debate, Jäger decided that raising the traffic barriers was the only solution. Around 11:30 p.m., the decades-long Cold War division of Germany ended.

Throughout the night, other crossings opened in much the same way. Every opening meant more people flooding into the west and more images beaming back east, in turn sending more easterners onto the streets. Because of the ongoing top-level crisis meetings, those who might have ordered bloody reprisals were largely uninformed, and unaware that the known parameters of their political lives had suddenly disappeared.

Of course, the wall would have come down eventually, but not necessarily in the same way. An opening on a later date could have posed far more dangers. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had made clear that he would not use violence as political change began sweeping Eastern Europe, but what if he had already moved farther down his arc toward losing all power? What might another Soviet leader have done?

Even the exact hour mattered: The wall opened when many East German political and military leaders were sequestered in meetings, and many significant Soviet leaders -- because of the time difference -- were already asleep. What if they'd had time to fortify the borders before the flood of people arrived? As it was, none of them could mount an immediate response, and soon it was too late to undo the events of the evening.

We like to think that all great events have great causes, and obviously long-term political, economic and military forces shaped the Cold War -- and how it ended. But momentous events are also a sort of ambush of history, when all those long-term pressures come together in an unexpected way. The opening of the Berlin Wall, largely unintentional, was such an event, an unsettling thought for those who see history as the result of strategy and planning by pivotal leaders.

If only a few things had been different, we might not have such happy memories to celebrate next week. But thanks to the mumbling of a sleep-deprived East German official, some overzealous Western reporting and the willingness of East Germans to risk a trip to the wall, the Cold War reached a swift and peaceful conclusion.

Mary Elise Sarotte, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California and a Bosch public policy fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, is the author of "1989: The Struggle to Create Post-Cold War Europe," to be published next week. She will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.