=============================================================================

THE RESISTER ---- The Official Publication of the Special Forces Underground.

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

Volume I, Number 2.  Autumn 1994.

Boxholder, P.O. Box 1403, Addison, Texas, 75001               (Price)  GRATIS

=============================================================================

 

                              NEW WORLD ORDER

                            COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

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

                               Question # 46

                    "I Would Fire Upon U.S. Citizens..."

 

      The RESISTER has confirmed that US Navy SEAL platoons, including SEAL

Team Six, Marine combat veterans stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA, and

Marine basic trainees at Camp Pendelton, CA, have been administered a

questionnaire asking, among other things, if they would "...fire upon US

citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US

government."

      The questionnaire was first administered to operators by the commanders

of SEAL Team Six on 15 September 1993, then subsequently to the remaining SEAL

platoons throughout September and October.  Rumors began circulating in

November that US Army DELTA operators were given the same or similar

questionnaire.  The SF Underground had been aware of the questionnaire since

late September but our observers had been unable to secure a copy or confirm

other than its substance consisted of questions pertaining to the

subordination of the US Military to the UN and confiscation of the firearms of

US citizens.  In early January, 1994, we obtained a copy of the questionnaire

from one of our DOD sympathizers but lacking corroboration we ran the story in

Vol.I, No.1 of The RESISTER as a rumor.

      On January 22, 1994, one of our observers copied a chilling message off

the Internet from Petty Officer 2nd Class W. Kelly, US Navy Special Warfare

Team Six, to D. Hawkins, Re: Gun Confiscation.  Kelly began by stating that

the questionnaire was "...to find out if we would follow the orders of

commanding officers without question." (Kelly omitted the fact that the

questionnaire assumes "commanding officers" gives equal authority to UN

officers commanding US forces.) Kelly continued; "If you wish to find out how

I answered I said yes I would fire and kill all persons attempting to

resist...we aren't around to be the good guys."  Remember, Kelly is referring

to American civilians.

      In February, 1994, MODERN GUN magazine ran a story on the elusive

questionnaire which was subsequently circulated by various patriotic citizens

groups.  Then, on 10 May, 1994, the questionnaire was administered to Marine

Desert Storm veterans at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA.  A Marine smuggled a copy of

the questionnaire out of the testing center and mailed it on 15 May, 1994,

with a cover letter, to the editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, which ran the story in

their July 11, 1994, issue.  THE NEW AMERICAN quotes the Marine's impression

that the questionnaire "was just research for this (Navy) commander's(sp)

degree."  The RESISTER obtained a copy of the Marine's letter, which actually

states: "A Navy Commander came before us and said he was working on his

masters degree and he was writing a paper about giving up our military's

soverenty(sp) to the United Nations Secretary General."

      The official DOD lie surrounding the questionnaire entitled "Combat Arms

Survey," supports that of the Navy Commander.  Significantly, the Combat Arms

Survey was first given at the time Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25

was being prepared.  The RESISTER's correspondent in the Pentagon staff of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms that PDD 25 surrenders control of the U.S.

military to the United Nations. (A cursory survey of articles written by MACOM

commanders and staff members in official military journals for the past year

reveals a universal acceptance of U.N. control of the American military.)

      The RESISTER has been eliciting responses to the questionnaire for the

past year.  Frighteningly, among service members with less than 10 years of

service, 63% agree or strongly agree with question # 46: "I would fire upon

U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S.

government."  Among new recruits almost 90% give the response: "If it's the

law and they order me to do it I guess it's okay."  Our federally controlled

public schools have done their job.

      Of those with more than 15 years of service, 87% replied "disagree" or

"strongly disagree."  Responses by members of the Special Forces Underground

were unprintable; basically, there will not be many officers who give that

order more than once.

      The RESISTER has enclosed a copy of the Combat Arms Survey with this

issue.  As you read it pay particular attention to the qualifiers and their

relation to recent articles in the official publications of the Department of

Defense, the civilian media, and the policies of the federal government. *

 

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

Editorial Note

      The enclosed Combat Arms Survey is a true and accurate reproduction of

the contents of the questionnaire.  We altered the format to accommodate the

The RESISTER's layout.     THE EDITOR

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

 

                           COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

 

      This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat

trained personnel with regards to nontraditional missions.  All of your

responses are confidential.  Write your answers directly on the questionnaire

form.  In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.

 

 

Part I.     Demographics

 

1. What service are you in?

 

2. What is your pay grade?  (e.g. E-7, O-7)

 

3. What is your MOS code and description?

 

4. What is your highest level of education in years?

 

5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?

 

6. How many months did you serve in Somalia?

 

7. What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?

 

Part II.    Attitudes

 

 

      Do you feel that U.S. Combat troops should be used within the United

States for any of the following missions?

 

8. Drug enforcement

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

11. Environmental disaster clean-up

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

12. Substitute teachers in public schools

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up,

road repair, animal control)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

14. Federal and state prison guards

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

15. National emergency police force

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

16. Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms (B.A.T.F.)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

17. Border patrol (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

 

 

      Do you feel that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in

other countries for and of the following United Nations missions?

 

18. Drug enforcement

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

19. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

20. Environmental disaster clean-up

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

21. Peace keeping

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

22. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school

system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing,

and clothing)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

 

      Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries,

under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of

the following  missions?

 

24. Drug enforcement

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

25. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

26. Environmental disaster clean-up

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

27. Peace keeping

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

28. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school

system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

29. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing,

and clothing)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

30. Police action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non-U.S. officers)

 

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

 

      Consider the following statements:

 

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise.  U.N. combat troops should be

allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S.

command and control.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

32. The United Nations runs a field training exercise.  U.S. combat troops

under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these

exercises.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

33. The United Nations runs a field training exercise.  U.S. combat troops

should serve under U.N. command and control in U.N. during these exercises.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S.

has full command and control.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United

Nations command and control.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non-

commissioned (NCOs) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N.

missions.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my

team. (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company

commander.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

39. I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his

responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a

U.N. soldier.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing

humanitarian missions for the United Nations.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently

assigned to the command and control of the United Nations.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under

a U.N. commander.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to the U.N. all

the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace. 

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

45. I would swear to the following code:

      "I am a United Nations fighting person.  I serve in the forces which

maintain world peace and every nation's way of life.  I am prepared to give my

life in their defense."

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale,

transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms.  A thirty (30) day

amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over the local

authorities.  At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to

turn over their firearms.  Consider the following statement:

 

      I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of

firearms banned by the U.S. government.

      (   )          (   )   (   )        (   )       (   ) 

Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree  No opinion

 

                                    *

 

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

End Note

 

      Our civilian readers maybe wondering why the Combat Arms Survey was

circulated so heavily within the Department of the Navy.  The reason is

simple; the Navy is not subject to USC Title 10 Posse Comitatus prohibitions

against using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement.  This

includes the US Marine Corps.

      Just thought you would like to know.

 

                                                THE STAFF

 

==============================================================================

 

                                EDITORIAL

 

                      The Lie of Equal Opportunity

 

      The Equal Opportunity Program of the United States Army claims that it

formulates, directs, and sustains a comprehensive effort to ensure fair

treatment of all soldiers "based solely on merit, fitness, capability, and

potential, which supports readiness."  This policy is stated to be based on

"fairness, justice, and equity."  But the simple fact is that if the Equal

Opportunity Program were based solely on merit, fitness, capability, and

potential there would be no need for it.  The EO policy officially sanctions,

by its very existence, unfairness, injustice and inequality.

      The philosophical premise of all equal opportunity programs is

egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism is the belief that all men are equal.  If

"equality" is held to any serious or rational standard, as in the realm of

politics and law, egalitarianism is the principle of individual rights which

cannot be repealed by democratic majority, subverted by minority machinations,

nor infringed by government legislation.

      But political and legal equality are not the intent of equal opportunity

programs.  Equal opportunity programs seek nothing less than METAPHYSICAL

equality; the equality of ability, competence, industriousness, and

intelligence.  Equal opportunity programs, by their very existence, defy the

objective reality that all men are not equal.  They seek to abolish some

perceived "unfairness" that does not permit the inept, incompetent, lazy, or

stupid to succeed.

      Note how the goal of equality is achieved.

      Since equal recognition for unequal performance would be too obvious an

injustice, equal opportunity egalitarians prohibit unequal performance.  (Read

and OER or NCOER.)

      Because some men are to accept responsibility faster than others, the

egalitarians deny the notion of "merit" and substitute the concept of

"seniority" for promotions.  (Study the results on any promotion board.)

      Since some men are more intelligent than others, the egalitarians forbid

individual excellence and subordinate it to the collective mediocrity of

"consensus building" and stultifying institutional group-think.  (Observe the

workings of any committee or "team.")

      Since some men have greater ability and study more conscientiously than

others, the egalitarians abolish objective standards based on achievement and

substitute outcome-based 'standards' that equate the lame to the fit and the

moron to the intelligent.  (Attend any school.)

      Equality of opportunity has nothing to do with equality or opportunity. 

It is the official doctrine of racism, tribalism, and collectivism.  It is but

one premise of the unconscionable evil of altruism.  Equal opportunity is the

official sanction of the hatred of the good BECAUSE it is good.

      If the Army's Equal Opportunity Program were truly based on individual

"merit, fitness, capability, and potential," personnel records would be purged

of all references to race and ethnic origin, the Official Photo would be

eliminated, and commanders would again have local promotion authority above

Staff Sergeant.

 

                                          Richard Crossman

 

                                    *

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

 

                      AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS

 

      For the past two months our observers have been reporting that some

readers are questioning the integrity of contributors to The RESISTER because

they choose to be known by pseudonyms rather then their real names.  This is a

legitimate concern and it deserves to be answered at length.

      First, no contributor is obliged to use a pseudonym, as anybody who has

actually READ the first issue can tell you.  Second, the decision to require

staff members and regular contributors to use pseudonyms was an OPSEC issue,

not an ethical one.  Third, there is a historical precedent we follow which,

if not already familiar to you, in all likelihood never will be, and is

therefore none of your business.  Fourth, publishing The RESISTER is a

security risk in its own right, let alone referring to in tradecraft and

organization.  Really, what DO they teach you guys in the Q-course these days?

      The RESISTER is a response to the altruistic cannibalism which is

consuming the principle of inalienable individual rights upon which this

nation was founded and which have been served-up in sacrifice to the mob god

of democracy, the minority god of tribalism, the nature god of

environmentalism, the slave god of collectivism, and the statist god of

socialism.

      Do you want to know who we are?  We are the individuals who conceive the

ideas the cretinous mob calls "the team effort."  We are the individuals whose

excellence is subverted by the racist policy of "equal opportunity."  We are

the independent, innovative, and creative who have been enslaved to serve the

"greater good."  Without us you would still be prying roots out of ground with

a pointed stick.

      It would be a great comfort and convenience for the myriad

unconstitutional federal agencies to note us, categorize us, and file us away

for future "reference."  We will not give them an early chance, nor will we be

goaded into identifying ourselves by sneering comments about anonymous

writers.

      Every whim based, undefined, un-judicable law it passes; every

unconstitutional gang of armed badge wielding thugs it deploys; every

unconstitutional agency it creates; every incomprehensible special interest

regulation it mandates; every dime extorted through taxation and redistributed

to the incompetent and undeserving; every American life lost in some

altruistic war, humanitarian assistance, or peacekeeping operation,

demonstrates the illegitimacy of the federal government.

      The federal government os not "of the people," it is the instrument of

pull-peddlers.  It is not "by the people," it is the toady of special

interests.  It is not "for the people," it is the exercise of force for the

sake of force.

      Pass laws against us; we will not obey.  Regulate our activities; we

will not comply.  Legislate our behavior; we will not consent.

      We are freemen.  We will not be subjugated.  We have the guns to prove

it.

                                          THE EDITOR  

 

==============================================================================

 

                              CORRESPONDENCE

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

 

                        Is The RESISTER For Real?

 

      As I write this letter the various comments I have heard concerning The

RESISTER return to mind.  The first one is, "Are you for real?"  The converse

being that your publication is a U.S. Government plant to entrap members of

the SOF community into revealing themselves.  Secondly, why not print the

names of the contributors?  To me that is obvious, but I'll let you explain.

      Thought I would let you know I got a big kick out of the "Personals." 

Reminds me of WWII and the French Resistance stories I have heard and read. 

Also the commo block was a nice touch.

      If you are an actual paper I hope you have the space to print this

letter.  It will as least show some of the doubting here at the Special

Warfare Center and School that there is someone out there.

      Please feel free to use my name and office as I see no need to use a non

de guerre.

 

                                          SFC David R. Hall

                                          USAJFKSWCS

 

      Yes.  See RUMORS.  We will: See Vol. I No. 1, p.6, col. 3, para. 3, in.

16.

      It is impolite to discuss tradecraft.  Read--Secret Forces: The

Technique of Underground Movements, by F.O. Miksche.

      We assume you mean "non de plume."

 

                                          THE EDITOR

 

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

 

                           CONSERVATIVE REVIEW

 

      I have received a xerox copy of The RESISTER, Vol. I, No 1.

      I like it!  Can I be on your mailing list?

 

                                          Dr. Susan Huck

                                          Associate Editor

                                          Conservative Review

                                          1307 Dolly Madison Blvd.

                                          McLean, VA 22101

                                          (703) 893-7302

 

      For obvious (to us) reasons we do not keep mailing lists.  We will

however, see to it that you are included in the distribution scheme and

receive a grey copy.

       We do ask that if you intend to mention The RESISTER in your

publication that you have the professional courtesy to let us review said

material first.  Mail reaches us through a rather indirect and laborious

route, so give us at least four weeks to respond.

 

                                          THE EDITOR

 

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

 

                           NEW WORLD SLAVERY

 

      Has anyone considered that if the United Nations possessed sufficient

power to enforce world peace they would also have the power to enforce world

dictatorship?  Apparently this fact does not trouble our government.

      Since 1961 the United States Department of State has been negotiating

away our national sovereignty in the name of "World Peace" consistent with the

provisions of the Kennedy administration document entitled "FREEDOM FROM WAR."

 

I am no major league historian but I am old enough to remember that "peace"

was the communist catch phrase meaning one-world communism.

      Does anyone else stop to consider that the United States is the only

non-socialist country in the world and United Nations edicts on arms control,

environmentalism, and 'human rights' are always focused on, and contrary to

the interests of the United States?

      "FREEDOM FROM WAR" outlined a three-stage evolution designed to make the

UN the sole legitimate user of force on the face of the planet.  Keep in mind

that this was the US Department of State's vision for the future of country in

1961.

      Phase One essentially eliminates the notion of national sovereignty by

enforcing unilateral disarmament while strengthening UN "peacekeeping" powers.

      Phase two reinforces UN "peacekeeping" by transferring all legitimacy

for the exercise of military force to the United Nations.  We are already

there.  Note that regardless of the sovereign interests of this country during

DESERT SHIELD president Bush went groveling to the United Nations for

permission to act.

      Phase three will permit nations to retain only those forces and

armaments necessary for the maintenance of internal order.  Only the UN will 

maintain arms and forces necessary to wage offensive war under the control of

it's "Peace Force."

      Now, the US has endorsed a working paper seeking global gun control

submitted to the UN Disarmament Commission by Patti Londono, a Columbian UN

Diplomat.  On May 9, 1994, The United States allowed consensus adoption of the

working paper which puts domestic gun control on par with nuclear disarmament.

 

                                          George Prescott

                                          USAJFKSWCS

 

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

 

                        THE DANGER OF PRECEDENCE

 

      I hope you have been following the O.J. Simpson case at least through

the preliminary hearing.  The key issue was Fourth Amendment rights.  For the

sake of clarity the Fourth Amendment states:

 

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

      papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

      shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon

      probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly

      describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to

      be seized.

 

      Now that we're on the same sheet of music, some of the arguments made by

O.J.'s council make better sense.  The Fourth Amendment says in essence that,

if you want to search a residence, you need a warrant.  Quite plain and

simple.  It says nothing about exigent (urgent or critical) circumstances nor

does it infer them.

      The argument of exigent circumstances has developed from "legal

precedence."  An analogy for precedence is as follows: Your mother tells you

to stay out of the cookie jar or she will beat your butt.  You get into it and

get caught.  Mom is in a good mood and doesn't beat you.  The next time she

catches you she's angry but you plead __precedence__ to prevent your beating. 

You got away with it the first time so why not this time?

      It is the same with the legal system.  When the police violate the

Constitution, and get away with it, new case law follows and precedent for the

action is established.  

      What about exigent circumstance?  It has become a standard police tactic

to subvert the intent of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unwarranted

search and seizure.

      I am not here to say the police should not enter a place if a true

crisis is taking place.  However, the limit of their action though should be

to stop the disturbance, secure the scene and request a warrant if probable

cause exists.  But a tiny blood spot on a vehicle door should not be brought

before the court as the basis for the police or district attorney's claim of

"exigent circumstance."

      Neither this, nor the claim of someone else in danger, holds any

credence.  The police did not race to the home of Nicole's "friend" and crash

in to see if everyone was safe.  What about equal treatment under the law?

      O.J. Simpson's Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated.  You may

not care for Simpson or you may even say, "he is guilty so who cares how he

was brought down."  That attitude is precisely the problem.  It is better for

a guilty man to go free than have our rights trampled upon by the minions of

so-called justice.  If any government is allowed to whatever measures it deems

necessary to bring order, you can rest assured that it will be totalitarian

and brutal.

 

                                          "Lexington"

                                          USAJFKSWCS 

 

==============================================================================

 

                                HORROR FILE

                                -----------

 

            Crime Bill Defines The RESISTER as Instrument of Terror

 

      Senator Joseph Biden's SB 226, now incorporated into the Crime Control

Act of 1993, (passed by both houses of Congress soon to signed by Clinton),

would make publication of The RESISTER an "intent" to commit a terrorist act.

      Section 8 of Biden's SB 223 'defines' intent in this context as "appear

to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to

influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

      This includes, but is not limited to; demonstrations, pickets, computer

bulletin boards, publications, assemblies, and speech.

 

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

 

                        First Amendment Trial Balloon

 

      Harry W. Marrerro (JD) is being "detained" in a maximum security federal

prison, without bond, for producing and selling a video tape about the

Constitution entitled "Sovereignty vs Slavery."

      Mr. Marrerro was indicted by a federal Grand Jury on charges of

conspiracy, wire fraud, and mail fraud because he poses a "danger to society"

for spreading "propaganda."  Mr. Marrerro's message?  The primacy of the

individual.

      The federal crime bill designates anti-government speech, such as

proclaiming the desirability of revolution against tyranny, as "material

support to terrorism," and makes RICO forfeiture possible for statements made

up to 4 years PRIOR to the enactment of the bill.

      This is EX POST FACTO legislation.

 

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

 

                          Equal Opportunity Poverty

 

      The decent middle class neighborhood you live in has now been designated

by the federal government as a "low poverty area."  This means your

neighborhood is unfairly divided from inner city slums by a lack of "income

integration."

      HUD now considers almost every neighborhood in America as an unfair

housing market, liable to forced integration by the whim of the federal

government.  If you own property in a middle-class neighborhood you are now

guilty, by default, of the undefined charge of racism.

      Between 1970 and 1976 HUD transformed Detroit and Chicago into giant

slums by redistributing welfare moochers and their criminal, gang, and drug

addict hitchhikers to affluent neighborhoods.  HUD secretary Henry Cisneros

and HUD assistant secretary Roberta Achtenberg figure that was not good

enough.

      Altruist egalitarianism demands that everyone live in equally crime-

ridden slums.

 

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

 

            "This Isn't Something You Need to Have in Your Library"

 

      Major Mark Prugh, acting on the instructions of Colonel Richard Seim,

Command Judge Advocate, United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare

Center and School, confiscated the USAJFK Special Warfare Center and School

Marquat Memorial Library's well thumbed reference copy of The RESISTER.

(For the edification of our civilian readers the Command Judge Advocate, COL

Seim, works exclusively for, and acts on behalf of, Major General William

Garrison, Commander, USAJFKSWCS.)  What is particularly obnoxious is that it

was a grey copy; in other words, an original.  This outrage occurred Thursday,

25 August, 1994.

      Our observers report that MAJ Prugh asked for the desk copy of The

RESISTER and, having obtained it from the unwitting duty librarian, turned to

walk out the door with it.  When advised that the issue in question was the

library's only reference copy and was not to be removed form the premises

Prugh returned to the desk and scrawled a note stating who he was and that he

was acting "per COL Seim's instructions," while stapling his card to the note.

      When asked why he was taking the library's only copy he replied, "The

isn't something you need to have in your library."

      We will point out that the Marquat Memorial Library contains the

collected works of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and at least

something representing the philosophy of every brand of collectivism,

socialism, statism, tribalism, and anarchy.  Obviously, the Chain of Command

considers those works perfectly acceptable reading for our soldiers.

      The RESISTER's message of strict constitutionalism, isolationism,

laissez-faire capitalism, individual rights, and republicanism, is considered

subversive. 

      It is tempting to hold MAJ prugh accountable for his action, but know

that he was just an "errand boy sent by grocery clerks;" an errand boy who

held __mandatory__ "Homosexuality Sensitivity Training" for all USAJFKSWCS

instructors and staff throughout August, 1994.

      Major General Garrison's address is:

 

Commander

ATTN: AOJK-CO

USAJFKSWCS

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

28307-5000

(910) 432-4404

 

==============================================================================

 

                                  RUMORS

                                  ------

 

                      The RESISTER a Government Plot?

 

      Major Robert Tiffany, FA, Doctrine Division, USAJFKSWCS, has opined that

The RESISTER is published by the Clinton adminstration as a vehicle designed

to "smoke out" dissidents and subversiveness in the military.

 

 

      NICE TRY BOB, NOW THAT YOU'RE RETIRING WE HOPE YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A

LIVING BY YOUR ANALYTICAL SKILLS.

 

                                          THE STAFF

 

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

 

                        U.N. Fomenting Insurgencies

 

      An interesting tidbit surfaced in THE NEW FEDERALIST, dated June 13,

1994.  It seems the United Nations Human Development Program has been

'studying' the internal conditions of various Third World countries.

      In the case of Mexico, the UNDHP conducted an exhaustive study of "human

conditions" in State of Chiapas during the spring of 1993.  Seven months

later, in January 1994, Mexico was faced with an insurgency in that state, led

by the masked (and alleged homosexual) pipe smoking Marcos.

      We have reproduced an article leveling the charge of UN sponsored

insurgencies by a Mexican journalist, Linda de Hoyos, on page 12.  Normally,

we care less what happens in Mexico.  But because American soldiers are now

routinely deployed to dung heaps by our socialist government to "help"

miserable, starving, Third World abstractions at the behest of the United

Nations, we thought you should see what you're getting into and why.

 

                                    ASSOCIATE EDITOR

 

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

 

                                Primer Shortage

 

      For the past eight months it has been almost impossible to but primers

in any reasonable quantity.  The RESISTER began quietly canvassing

manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers to find out why.

      Retailers and wholesalers were patiently waiting for cartridge

manufacturers to finish their annual production which they (the distributors),

said usually reduced primer availability until early summer.  When we talked

to the manufacturers they said the U.S. government had placed orders for

ammunition SIX TIMES their normal annual commission.  Some quick fourth-grade

math completed the story.

      In a normal year, the federal government purchases approximately 1.7

million rounds for its myriad unconstitutional law enforcement agencies.  This

excludes the various arsenals which produce ammunition for the military.  This

year the federal government purchased over one BILLION rounds.

      It gets uglier.  This year the federal government began arming the IRS

and the EPA.  The Fed's are also expanding the FBI's HRT, the BATF's

enforcement branch, and DOE's private army.  Juxtapose this with the federal

government's determination to abrogate the Second Amendment.

      If anyone has information pertaining to this issue write us.

 

                                          THE EDITOR

 

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

 

                          National Forest HLZ's

 

      When units are deployed on JTF-Six missions they are routinely required

to locate and survey Helicopter Landing Zones within National Forests which

are then turned over to the National Forest Service during the post mission

AAR.  The official explanation is that these HLZ's will be used by future

missions as MEDEVAC dust-off sites.

      Debriefs of personnel returning from JTF-Six missions indicate that the

purpose of the National Forest HLZ surveys is not quite so benign.  The PIR

and IR for JTF-Six OPORDs frequently require units to report on the locations,

numbers, dress, and types of arms carried by civilians within National

Forests, and specifically address reporting any type of "paramilitary"

activity.  This information is included in the post-mission INSUM which is

then turned over to JTF-Six J-2 and is accessible by Operation Alliance; in

other words, the FBI, BATF, US Border Patrol, DEA, among others.

      Counter drug or internal security?  If you have been recently deployed

on a JTF-Six mission or an RSU rotation and some of your mission and reporting

requirements did not quite squire with the official lie, write us.

 

                                          THE STAFF   

 

==============================================================================

                  FIELD REPORT: SECOND AMENDMENT RALLY

 

                          Alexander Davidson

                    Washington D.C., 14 August, 1994

 

 

      One of the oddities of political demonstrations is that those who do not

actually work for a living have the time, supporting front organizations, and

resources donated by altruists, do-gooders, and other socialists, communists,

and influence peddlers to form mobs to protest this or the other perceived

inequity while carrying cardboard placards demanding that groundless theories,

mindless philosophies, and range of the moment whims be given the same status

as fact, reason, and reality.

      Those of us who actually work to earn our living do not have the idle

luxury to demonstrate in defense of our inalienable objective rights.

      The Second Amendment Rally drew, we estimate, about 2,000 people.  (Our

estimate is based on the area covered divided by approximately 3 square meters

per person given the area covered and mean dispersion).  Bus loads of people

arrived from Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina.  Individuals drove from as

far away as Colorado and Alabama.   

      We admit being a little disappointed in the turnout when we heard the

first reports from our observers at the rally.  But upon reflection we quickly

came to realize that people who are in the right seldom think they are

compelled to prove it to others.  It is the liar who must shout down the

truthful to be heard, the incompetent who must denigrate the work of the

competent to be recognized, and the inept who must enslave the able to feign

success.

      While the numbers of honest, competent, and able citizens who came to

the rally may not be remarkable, the fact that most of them were willing to

miss the following day of two of work to defend their right to bear arms

against government tyranny is.

      The media was conspicuous by their absence,  Not one news agency arrived

to record and report on a rally by law abiding citizens opposing government

abrogation of their rights.  If an equal number of homosexuals, drug addicts,

communists, bean curd eaters, animal worshipers, minority tribalists, or

common street garbage had staged a rally the carrion eaters of the media would

have been there in force clucking their tongues wondering how these people

could have suffered for so long.

      Of the distinguished guests who were invited to attend only G. Gordon

Liddy appeared and spoke.  His message was clear and succinct: "You have no

moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws.  When they tell you to

register your firearms--don't.  When they tell you to turn in your firearms--

don't."  No argument form us.

      Rush Limbaugh was too busy signing books in Colorado.

      There was a consistent underlying theme that brought these people

together to take a stand for their rights, unified them in their outrage

against our unconstitutional federal government, and kept them focused on the

very reason why the Second Amendment is the keystone of the Bill of Rights--

Waco.

      Waco defined in one act, the federal government's true position on the

rights and individual liberties guaranteed to all freemen by the constitution.

      Waco put the fear of tyrannical government into every rational person in

this country.  If there was a war cry to mobilize resistance to the vagaries

of the federal government, the non-objectivity of our undefinable, 

un-judicable, and therefore unjust firearms laws, that war cry is 

"REMEMBER WACO!"

      There is a small but growing segment of the American public who are

aware that the BATF thugs who assaulted a community of Christian law abiding

citizens were trained and advised by members of 3rd Special Forces Group

(Airborne), under the auspices of Operation Alliance and Joint Task Force -

Six.  It was with great interest that our observers at the Second Amendment

Rally learned that Mr. James Pate, a free-lance journalist who uncovered that

fact and broke the story in SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, would speak at the rally.

      Mr. Pate began his speech at a disadvantage; everything he had to say

about Waco had already been said by Kirk Lyons, from Black Mountain, NC, one

of the defense attorneys for the Waco defendants.  But then, Pate paused, held

above his head a grey document and announced:

      "There is a crisis of command in our standing army.  I am holding a copy

of The RESISTER: The Official Publication of the Special Forces Underground. 

This letter, written by a soldier from the 7th Special Forces Group, expresses

the concerns of some members of the Special Operations Community about a

government and it's appointed officers who order them to oppress the citizens

of this country:

 

            My friends and I are all in agreement; our government is

      getting out of control and the first time we are given an order to

      disarm the citizens of this country we are going to desert and

      join whatever guerilla movement demonstrates it is fighting to

      restore the principles this country was founded on..."

 

      As our observers edged their way out of the crowd under the cover of HC

and violet smoke, mixed, to their break in contact, they heard the crowd roar

it's approval.

      APPROVAL.  For the first time in 200 years elements of United States

Army openly publicize their intent to resist the policies of the federal

government and American citizens publicly demonstrate their approval.

      Why?  Because most people are afraid of the government.  It is a very

subtle fear.  It is a fear resulting form the uncertainty of legal status born

 

of the incomprehensibility of our laws and their whimsical application and

enforcement.

      One of our staff members has remarked that his mother persistently says,

"Don't say things like that over the phone!"  Another points out that most

people are afraid to join politically active organizations because they want

to wind up on "their" list.

      The RESISTER has one answer to those and other objections to resisting

tyranny--"You behave like someone who lives in a police state."

      During their debriefing one of our observers stated, "I don't know how

he (Pate) got hold of it (The RESISTER).  When he mentioned Special Forces

there were murmurs of 'traitors,' and 'Quislings.'  But when he read the

letter from 'John" the crowd went crazy because they found out we (The

Resistance) were with them.  It may take twenty years, but we're going to

win...I know that now.

 

                                                              AMEN

                                    *

 

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

 

                       "Assault Gun" Ban Analysis

 

                               "Minuteman"

                                 3rd SFG

 

      The recent ban on military style semi-automatic weapons is far more

onerous than even pro-Second Amendment organizations presume.  Placed in

context with Clinton's April 19, 1994 remark, "...there's too much personal

freedom." and Senator Biden's recent statement that the federal government

will decide what the "people need," the purpose of the ban is clear.

      Semi-automatic firearms cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. 

The majority of these weapons are not owned by collectors, who are relatively

well off, and who obtain them for their own esoteric purposes.  Nor are they

owned by "the poor," who could not hope to splurge on an $800 to $3000

firearm.  They are owned by the middle class; hard-working, law abiding

property owners.

      Some possess them out of nostalgia for their military service, some for

weekend plinking, some for competitive shooting, some for self protection, a

few for hunting.  Their motive is irrelevant because it is their

Constitutional and natural right to own them.

      Now, consider the legislative assaults against the middle-class for the

past thirty years.  Environmental laws are Anti-property.  Economic laws are

anti-capitalism.  Civil rights laws are anti-individual.  Education laws are

anti-reason.  The sole purpose of federal anti-gun laws is anti-resistance.

      There is a growing movement throughout America to form local militias. 

This movement is not universal, nor is it well advertised, but it is expanding

with the growing recognition that the myriad incomprehensible laws passed in

the last thirty years were never intended to serve their stated purpose.

      If you are not a member of a non-state approved militia, join one.  If

there is none where you live, form one--in secret.  When the time comes we

will find you and assist you.   

                                    *

==============================================================================

 

                                   BTB

                                   ---

 

Melvil:

      Paragraph 2 by sentence.  Thank you.  You're not the only one.  We call

them "tobacco spitters." Whom, lately, has said, "No?"  WE know that.  I knew

him; he fell into the same trap as the "centurions."

      Paragraph 3, start sentence 2.  You are correct, we're working on it. 

We know.  Your 're right; we will when it's possible.  We know.  Thank you.

      P.S.  So are many others.

 

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

 

SGM:

      Reference our telephone conversation of 18 August, 1994: Want to put

theory into practice?

 

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

 

Bruce:

      It is impolite to discuss tradecraft.  Re: 1) He wouldn't; 2)Yes, yes,

no; 3) No; irrelevant; 4) You mean NOM DE PLUME.  Would you take the chance? 

You mean: AGENTS PROVOCATEURS.

 

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

  

Kyle:

      Your plumbing business and advertising are going to compromise you. 

It's time to start behaving as you believe.

 

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

  

Kevin:

      You can do more for us outside.  Mr. Charles Peterson will contact you

soon.  You are in a unique position.  If you are interested inquire about Mr.

Peterson's reading habits.

 

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

 

Michael: 

      Brief resume required.

 

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

 

"Sentinal"

      We need to talk.  Details forthcoming.  Do not tell anybody.  Do not

invite friends.

 

==============================================================================

 

                          PEACEKEEPING: What For?

 

                               Joseph Thomas

 

      The recent orgy of articles about United Nations peacekeeping and

humanitarian assistance in SPECIAL WARFARE magazine reveals a great deal about

where the United States military in general, and Special Forces in particular,

is being lead.

      Instead of focusing on the defense of this nation and the protection of

vital United States interests the U.S. military has become a slave service for

the wealth redistribution schemes of internationalists and gangs of weeping

do-gooder mystics.  One need simply note the circling of media carrion-eaters

to predict in which Third World toilet these altruists will next flush

hundreds-of-millions of tax dollars and the lives of U.S. service men.

      Peacekeeping is a monumental fraud.  It has noting to do with peace and

even less with keeping it.  Peacekeeping , and it's bastard offsprings--

peacemaking and peace enforcement--constitutes nothing less than the

abrogation of national sovereignty.  The insinuation of U.N. agencies into the

political fabric of the nations it "helps," the expropriation and

redistribution of property and wealth, and the establishment of

"democratically elected" socialist governments are actions that speak louder

than the mushy rhetoric of U.N. cheerleaders in the federal government. 

      In Somalia eighteen American slave-soldiers under U.N. command died, and

seventy-seven were wounded, for exactly NOTHING.  They were not heroes, they

were sacrificial animals.  At the same time the circus sideshow man hunt for

Adid was in full swing the United Nations was paying him over US$ 100,000

monthly in protection money so altruists could deliver food to hoards of

starving irrelevancies.  Vice President Gore consoled the parents of the

victims by telling them their sons died "in the service of the United

Nations."  (The RESISTER is reliably informed it is a good thing he had his

Secret Service hoods with him at the time.)

      Sergeant Major Steve Burback, a U.N. toady, conveniently sidesteps these

facts in his groveling January 1994, SPECIAL WARFARE article: THE BLUE

HELMETS: A HISTORY OF UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING FORCES.  Burback considers

Somalia a success.

      During the U.N. sponsored Korean War (which the socialist Truman called

a "police action"), military orders and directives sent from the NCA and the

Pentagon to commanders in Korea were routinely briefed to U.N. Military Staff

Committee members.  This information was then relayed to the North Koreans and

the Chinese communists by their allies, the Soviet Union.  Lin Piao, commander

of communist Chinese forces in Korea gloated, "I would never have made the

attack (across the Yalu, ED.) and risked my men and military reputation if I

had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur form

taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and

communication."  The number of American soldiers who died as a result of this

federal government treason cannot be calculated.

      The true intent of United Nations "peacekeeping" is best illustrated by

the 1960 - 1964 ONUC (Operation des Nations Unies au Congo), in what is the

archetype U.N. client state and IMF money sewer, Zaire.

      When Moise Kapenda Tshombe, pro-west and anti-communist leader of

Katanga province declared secession and independence from the communist regime

of Patrice Lumumba, the United Nations, at the behest of American liberals and

the Soviet Union deployed thousands of pro-communist thugs on U.S. transport

aircraft to Katanga back into line.  Thousands died in U.N. concentration

camps, whites were routinely murdered, civilian facilities were bombed by U.N.

aircraft (flown by Czech and Russian "technicians") between July 1960 and

January 1962.  ( See: REBELS, MERCENARIES AND DIVIDENDS, by Smith Hempstone,

1962.)

      Never in it's history has the United Nations intervened on behalf of a

pro-west, pro-capitalist nation under assault from communist subversion from

within or socialist aggression from without.  Where was the U.N. in Malaysia,

Viet Nam, Laos or Cambodia?  Objections that member states must appeal to the

United Nations for assistance are  irrelevant since their ideological

aggressors, communists and socialists, controlled (and still control) the

Security Council.  The U.N. does not send peacekeepers to protect Israel, but

to preserve the lunatic Islamic nations who attacked her.

      For what reason should the United States throw away hundreds of millions

of dollars in so-called foreign "aid" and risk the lives of American

servicemen to "save" mobs of starving irrelevancies and hoards of suffering

abstractions at the whim of the One World Socialists of the United Nations? 

So New World Order altruists can feel good about themselves.

      There are many who view the mindless whimsy and senseless rationalizing

of American foreign policy in general, and United Nations peacekeeping in

particular, as an omnipotent conspiracy masterminded by some malevolent

powerful giant.  Lacking irrefutable facts in proof of this contention The

RESISTER prefers to remain silent.  If there is a conspiracy we believe it is

more a conspiracy of philosophy that a conspiracy of men.

      The RESISTER contends that the truth is far more horrible: at the bottom

of the cloying fog of stench that surrounds U.N. peacekeeping and American

foreign policy is a nest of scurrying cockroaches.

 

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

 

                                  MOTIVE

 

      If you believe the Official Lie that the various Third World tribes

which provide the U.N. with peacekeeping forces do so out of the kindness of

their heart, guess again.  They do it for your tax money.

      One example in particular is illustrative.  When Zambia sent its

hoodlums to Mozambique last year each soldier was paid US$ 300.00 per month by

the U.N..  Of course, the Zambian government looted more than half that money,

but the net result was that the deployed Zambian soldier's pay more than

doubled.  The added benefit was that it got some of their armed gangs out of

the country for a while, thus reducing the threat of a coup.

      There is an analogy to be drawn here.  If the thugs and hoodlums of

Third World sewers get well paid by their U.N. masters (at least by their

standards), that at least makes them prostitutes--a known honorable

profession.

      United States peacekeepers get no extra pay.  The RESISTER figures that

this makes U.S. Peacekeepers little more than common street sluts.

 

==============================================================================

 

                  U.N. PLAN: One World Government by 1995

 

                              Linda de Hoyos

 

      The Human Development Report 1994, Released on June 1, 1994, sets forth

a blueprint to destroy the sovereign nation-state and replace it with a One

World UN dictatorship by March 1995.

      The UNDP report, endorsed by UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali,

outlines plans for establishment of "world institutions" with powers to

dictate policies to government, while simultaneously declaring war on nations

of the developing sector.

      under the ruse of a concept of "human security" designed to replace the

imperatives of national security of sovereign countries, the UNDP report sets

the agenda and protocols for the March 1995 heads-of-state summit on Social

Development to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark.  This summit is to follow this

September's Cairo Conference on Population, where Boutros-Ghali et al. are

demanding that nations agree to population reduction as the criterion of

economic performance.  The UNDP proposal, if implemented, would create the

enforcement apparatus for such genocidal aims.

      Specifically, the UNDP report calls for the creation of a World Court,

with powers to subpoena nations; A World Police; A World Bank, which would

give the International Monetary Fund sole power to enforce austerity on

nations; A world Treasury; An Economic Security Council, with a mandate to

interfere in those states that do not conform to UN protocols for "population

reduction" or "free trade" liberalization; A World Trade and Production

Organization, which would not only regulate "free trade" but would also

dictate production quotas to nations.

      To fund its One World government the UNDP report calls for global

taxation.  This is to include taxes on pollution, taxes on 'savings' from

demilitarization, taxes on all foreign exchange transactions, and a global

income tax on nations whose people average an income above US$ 10,000 per

year.

 

Genocide: The Aim

 

      The UN requires such global power of dictatorship, the report makes

clear, in order to enforce population reduction.  The biggest threat to "human

security," the report states on page 34, is 'unchecked population growth." 

The report states that by the year 2015, world population must be stabilized

at 7.3 billion.  For this goal to be reached, nations must "commit themselves

to ... participating in annual reviews of the 20:20 compact," to be held as

joint donor-recipient meetings on each country as well as annual reviews in

the Economic Security Council.

      Further, the UNDP demands that, while the UN heightens its powers to

militarily intervene in the sovereign territory of any nation, the militaries

of developing countries must be dismantled, their national security stripped. 

The UNDP report lists five cases in which UN Blue Helmet troops must be

deployed into the internal conflicts of nations: "mass slaughter of the

population of the state, decimation through starvation or the withholding of

health or other services, forced exodus, occupation and the denial of the

right to self-determination, (and) environmental destruction."

      To understand what this means, at the behest of British Prime Minister

Lord Palmerson, UN "Peace-makers" would have intervened to protect the

secession of the Confederacy from the Union during the American Civil War.

      At the same time, under the title "special contributions," the UNDP

endorses a call by Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and Nobel Peace

Prize winner, for developing nations to fully demobilize their armed forces. 

Arias calls for a Global Demilitarization Fund, managed by the UN, that would

dish out money to developing countries who make efforts to "disarm and

demobilize their armed forces, reintegrate military people into society, and

promote gun control."  Through the Economic Security Council, demilitarization

would become a new condition for any sid or loans to developing nations.

 

Demand for Disintegration

 

      The UNDP report has already drawn the wrath of some developing countries

for the inclusion in the report of a "hit list" of countries which the report

says are either in a state of crisis, or on the verge of crisis, and therefore

warrant UN "preemptive action."

      Targeted are Afghanistan, Angola, Haiti, Iraq, Mozambique, Sudan, Zaire,

Burundi, Georgia, Liberia, Rwanda, and Tajikistan.  The report further cites

Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, Mexico, and Nigeria as vulnerable to

disintegration due to "unequal distribution of resources."  Of these nations

Egypt, Mexico, and Nigeria were also targets of the 1970's National Security

Memorandum 200, written by Henry Kissinger, which declares that population

reduction is a national security goal of the United States.

      In the press conference which released the Human Development Report,

UNDP index designer Mabubhul Haq, an IMF flunky and former Pakistani Finance

Minister in the early 1980's, indicated that countries which do not submit to

the parameters of the UNDP "Human Development Index" will be hit with

insurgencies modeled on that of this year's Chiapas uprising of "indigenous

people" in southern Mexico.  Haq, in fact, revealed THE UNDP HAD DONE A

DETAILED STUDY OF CHIAPAS SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE THE JANUARY 1994 INSURGENCY WAS

LAUNCHED.

      A mere coincidence?  Haq further said the UNDP is now engaged in similar

'studies' of regional disparities in Egypt, Nigeria, and Brazil.

      Despite the liberal distribution of the word "human" throughout the UNDP

report human beings are not a high priority.  James Gustave Speth, head of the

UNDP, was the project director for the Carter administration's Global 2000

report which demanded that the world population be reduced to 2 billion by the

year 2000.

                              

==============================================================================

 

                              BOOK REVIEWS

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

 

      THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF COMPULSION BY THE STATE, by Auberon Herbert

 

      While not many people know his name, England's Auberon Herbert (1838 -

1906) was a profound defender of capitalism.  He wrote eloquent,

uncompromising, and philosophically insightful defenses of individual rights. 

Politics, he says, must be "the battle of the principles...the principle of

liberty against the principle of force."

      Herbert presents his views intransigently and articulate: "true liberty

cannot exist apart from the full rights of property, for property is the only

crystallized form of free faculties...The whole meaning of socialism is a

systematic glorification of force...No literary phrases about social organisms

are potent enough to evaporate the individual, who is the prime,

indispensable, irreducible element."

      Herbert readily applies these same principles to show the evils of

unlimited democratic rule.  "How should it happen that the individual should

be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited

rights?"

      But he does not regard the issue of force as a primary.  Instead, he

understands that it depends on something far more fundamental: the value of

reason.  "Force and reason--which last is the essence of the moral act--are at

the two opposite poles," he argues.  "The who compels his neighbor...treats

him, not as a being with reason, but as an animal in whom reason is not."

      Because of Herbert's commitment to reason, religion too is a target of

his withering attacks; "Socialism is but Catholicism addressing itself not to

the soul but to the sense of men."  Both implore one to "accept authority,

accept the force which it employs, resign yourself to all-powerful managers,

give up the free choice and the free act..They both of them seek to sacrifice

man."  The basic difference, he remarks, is that socialism "is a creed even

more denigrating than Catholicism, but it offers more tangible bribes for its

acceptance."

      Writing at the end of the 19th century, as attacks on capitalism began

to stir, the uncommon thinker declares: "It is not laissez-faire that has

failed.  That would be an ill day for men.  What has failed is the courage to

see what is true and speak it to the people, to point to the true remedies."

 

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

 

    PATRIOTS: The Men Who Started the American Revolution, by A.J. Langguth

 

      Turn of the evening news, put down your novel, and read this book.  The

happenings in Patriots are as relevant as the day's headlines and as

compelling as any "page-turner"--it is the story of the events that created

the United States.

      America's unique revolution was a war guided by intellectual activists. 

The incidents in this book may seem similar to those covered by contemporary

journalists--mass protests of unpopular decisions; legislatures wrangling over

the imposition of new taxes; soldiers firing into a violent mob and inciting

further demonstrations; a rebellious people taking over the government of a

country.  However, these events were driven not by blind emotions and

apparently random whim issues--but by conscious adherence to the ideal of

individual rights.

      This history begins with the ideological foment of 1761.  the use of

"writs of assistance"--blanket search warrants, designed to curb smuggling and

giving their bearers the right to search any ship or building they choose--was

legally challenged as an assault on Americans' rights.

      Langguth summarizes the case made by the British attorney: "Which was

more important, protecting the liberty of and individual or collecting the

taxes efficiently?  Gathering public money must take precedence."  On the

other hand, James Otis, the attorney for the colonists, argued that "every man

was his own sovereign...No other creature on earth could legitimately

challenge a mans right to his life, his liberty and his property.  That

principle, that unalterable law, took precedence...even over the survival of

the state."

      When Otis finished, "something profound changed America"--i.e.,

individual rights had been invoked to limit state power.

      The heroes who made the Revolution were men like Samuel Adams, the

ascetic Puritan who inflamed the mob in Boston--Patrick Henry, the brilliant

orator whose "Give me liberty or give me death" became the rallying cry for

American troops--George Washington, whose patrician integrity inspired his

soldiers while his aggressive tactics won the war--Thomas Jefferson, whose

commitment to rights persuaded the Continental Congress to endorse his

Declaration of Independence.

      Reading this book will inspire you.

 

==============================================================================

 

===============================================

|     HRLER DTTIA LRCRT ABNRS WEIIP CSCIR     |

|     LIIHO AHUGN DITGI SPYEA MERYA HUYHT     |

|     KETTD ATRFM INRXF VUWQL THCAH WDTIA     |

|     XAMWA HBTMA NMWAP EISOT BROYA MIAPF     |

|     ZORTP JWVNJ ODSJU TYISN AKIRD BYDJC     |

|     LEBSU QVRFT OMSTG INYVR SCEGR RELRH     |

===============================================

 

==============================================================================

 

                                 PERSONALS

                                 ---------

 

      Mr. Richard White's Texas ranch is ideally suited for the grazing large

herds of cattle.

 

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

 

      The King's Mountain Model Railroad Club will hold its quarterly meeting

at the Charlotte address.  Topic: Switching yards or spur lines, which is the

greater modeling challenge?

 

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

 

 

      Mr. Howard Devon, of Medford Wisconsin, wishes to announce the Medford

Gardening Club will now hold their monthly meetings every third Wednesday. 

The nest meeting will be a seminar on sunflowers.

 

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

 

      The Sand Hills Bird Watchers Society will conduct its 1st Annual

Membership Drive throughout the month of October.  Clara Miller, vice

president, reminds prospective members to provide their own optics.  The

club's GUIDE TO BIRDS will be provided at no cost.

 

==============================================================================

 

IN THE NEXT ISSUE:

 

* How the Second Amendment Will Be Abrogated By UN Treaty 

 

* Why NAFTA is Anti-Capitalism

 

* How Democracy Subverts the Constitution

 

* The True Nature of Rights

 

                                  -plus-

 

                            Our Usual Features

 

Ask for the Winter Issue in January; somebody will have it.

 

==============================================================================

 



