As I said in this post, “I will continue to post items of significance that are put out by others (Kenny, George Patton, etc.)”. I think this is significant, and Kenny puts a post by TOWR via SSI into a perspective by showing who and what (k)erodin and the IIIPooPoo platter (IIIP3) brings into the “rules” mix. Due to some of the comments over at Knuckledraggin’, I decided to add the commentary at the end. Enjoy.
From TOWR, via SSI
TOWR sends: Leaderless Resistance
Beam’s politics and belief system, however, are the antithesis of liberty and what we as three-percenters believe; no patriot who identifies with the III% or with the concept of liberty could ever view white supremacy doctrine as anything less than horrifying. In addition, Beam’s quest for government overthrow goes against the III% Creed.
In short, there is nothing about Louis Beam’s white supremacist, anti-government philosophy, doctrine, or belief system that we identify with in any form or fashion.
- TOWR does not advocate or agree with the armed “preemptive” overthrow of government.
- TOWR does not advocate or agree with the “first strike” concept of offensive violence toward government officials or law enforcement. In fact, TOWR will stand to defend any law enforcement officers who suffer reprisals for honoring the rights of the citizens.
- TOWR does not advocate or agree with the targeting of innocents at any time or for any reason.
- TOWR does not advocate or agree with the use of violence except in a defensive capacity to prevent imminent physical harm to one’s person, family or property, or the defense of innocents.
You’ve seen us use the term “leaderless resistance.” We accept that there are connotations within that many find unpalatable. In fact, leaderless resistance is seen as a concept “which encourages small, independent cells to commit violent acts.” That was not, is not, and will never be our intent.
In fact, let us repeat that. That was not, is not, and will never be our intent. In hindsight, the phrase itself does not even accurately explain what we are about; since we are just beginning, what better time than now to explain and clarify before pushing forward?
A better way of describing what we are preparing for, training for, studying for would be “open source insurgency,” along the lines of what Mike Vanderboegh wrote about in 2012.
The reason I’m so particular about allies and principles is that what we must attempt, should we ever face more tyranny from the Feds, is an open source insurgency, which is to say, many small-scale, local fights with national, even international, principles. Some call it “leaderless resistance” but that is not true. We must be led, but by principle. And only 4th Generation Warfare which targets policymakers — and policymakers only, not their families or other innocents — will win.
Leaderless resistance as explained by Beam focuses on the problems with a traditional “pyramid” leadership model. Military units (and by extension, nearly every militia unit and patriot group currently out there in the open) operate with it. The inherent problems with this model should be evident. They are susceptible to infiltration, ego, power grabs, and internal conflicts that tear them into pieces…which is exactly what the Feds want. The bigger and more public the group, the easier it is to tear apart or infiltrate and destroy. By nature, however, many patriots want to make big groups, multi-state groups, groups with hierarchies and impressive member lists and roll calls and public deployments and loud, outspoken leaders that get a lot of media attention—and want more. In fact, we were ourselves members of one of those groups…and we watched it fail for all the reasons mentioned above.
O’Ryan, writing in a comment on an SSI article in 2010, pinpointed another reason why the organized militia units are by nature ineffective:
Militia culture focuses on the kinetic activities, not the quieter domains of intelligence, perception management and clandestine operations. Most militia (and I use the term broadly) think in terms of fighting a II or III GEN war, not in terms of modern insurgency. Militias have no real influence operations or the intelligence apparatus to drive them…[…] The militias need more intelligence training and application. Low-level HUMINT, analysis, Close Target Reconnaissance and HUMINT enabled SIGINT and less talk radio. Mark Koernke is not an intelligence source and military publications are written for an audience with a large supporting infrastructure. There is plenty of information available for militias to develop really a spectacular intelligence capability, but the militias, for a variety of reasons, have not matured to this.
Because militias lack basic HUMINT capability, they lack basic HUMINT knowledge and are unable to perform counter-intelligence. There are no fine grained background checks to vet prospective applicants—ensuring that the Opposition can always stay inside their OODA loop. There is no Intelligence Preparation of the Environment to develop the intelligence fabric for operations. Because of this, the militias are always several moves behind while the Opposition is always several moves ahead. The militias cannot “detect” the Opposition let alone “finish” them.
His next words are what drive the point home.
I’ve met a few individual actors that understand this. Some have interesting military backgrounds, others are entirely self-taught and to good effect. They don’t get involved in militias because militias are a giant boy’s club with OPSEC problems. Further, militias just don’t want to learn anything that would upset their self image of modern Minutemen fighting with honor on some contemporary Breed’s Hill.
The Opposition is allot more cutthroat. Plus they do intelligence very well—as we have seen with the Oppositions use of informants (or ‘sources’ in the HUMINT lexicon).
Until the militias develop a functional intelligence capability, they will never be a fighting force.
Enter the leaderless resistance redux, or the preparation for open source insurgency—and, by the way, the purpose of the Order of the White Rose.
We are not wholly leaderless, for we are led by principles. We are not violent; we seek peace and liberty. We are not offensive, but defensive. However, we are also not a II or III Generation militia unit. We are not a Constitutional task force. We are training for whatwill be, not what was and has been before.
And we are determined to win.
Long live Freedom!
Here’s my thoughts, and I expressed part of this in Kenny’s comments,
Using an “innocent” family member to get to a known bad guy is fine. When I say “Using”, I mean surveillance, or letting them know that continued support of the known bad guy could put family members in the line of fire (example: Bad guy is in a house that gets taken down by a Squad, and family members are also there and end up in the line of fire). Specifically targeting those innocent family members (killing, kidnapping, torturing) because they are “family members” is unethical, immoral, and puts you in the same category as the people you say are the “bad guys” (why are they the bad guys again?). This begs the question, “What’s the point of what you’re doing? Is it like (k)erodin, and it’s just to rule with your brand of “rightful liberty” (“First we kill ALL the muslims”, attack the cafeteria worker, run a (k)aper, etc. right?)? Using/saying a popular term about mindset and implied action doesn’t make it so. Living the term with applied actions makes it so! A mindset like (k)erodin’s makes him just as much an enemy as any tyrant. His brand of “rightful liberty” ISN’T, at least not according to Jefferson’s definition. Here is the complete thought from Jefferson,
“I will however essay the two definitions which you say are more particularly interesting at present: I mean those of the terms liberty & Republic, aware however that they have been so multifariously applied as to convey no precise idea to the mind. of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. I will add 2dly that a pure republic is a state of society in which every member, of mature and sound mind, has an equal right of participation, personally, in the direction of the affairs of the society. such a regimen is obviously impracticable beyond the limits of an encampment, or of a very small village”. T Jefferson, 1819
Just like his use of the other terms “Serious” and “Patriot”, “rightful liberty” is used to evoke an emotional response from you that says “FUCK YEAH, that’s Liberty!, I’m for that!”, “FUCK YEAH, I’m Serious!” or “FUCK YEAH, I’m a Patriot!”. These terms are meant to manipulate you into agreement with (k)erodin, because no one wants to be thought of as not being for “Rightful” Liberty, not being a “Patriot”, or not being “Serious” correct? Don’t be fooled into thinking he “understands” or “is” any of those terms in reality. (k)erodin uses SJW tactics and manipulates terms like a pro so he can try and alter the perception people have of the people he calls his “enemies” (I won’t refer to him as such, he hasn’t earned that level of respect. I’ve had real enemies that were trying to kill me, and he ain’t one of them. He doesn’t deserve the respect I’d give Hadji.).
The facts are simple, if you are a “combatant”, you make sure those who are not combatants are protected because they are “innocents”, correct? If someone is attacking them to get to you, they have crossed an ethical and moral line, and deserve whatever you can dish out. Objectively speaking, the same rules apply to you, and you should conduct yourself accordingly. how much of a bad ass you are doesn’t define you, your character defines you. There are plenty of bad guys out there with more skills than us, but to win over them, character will be what counts (I can teach/give you skills, I can’t teach/give character. I can only hope I’m a good example for someone to emulate). I know some “well known” guys with “Skills”, but I wouldn’t trust them in the same vicinity as my family. Their character is lacking and they’ve proven to be untrustworthy with other important things.
American by BIRTH, Infidel by CHOICE