Jump to content
Liberty Prime

Recognizing Threats- The internal Struggle

Recommended Posts

Recognizing Threats.pdf     Recognizing Threats is an informational project created as a short introduction to understanding the possible internal threats facing a Militia.

 

Feel free to offer any critics, or ask for more of an explanation. This is a first public draft to provide valuable information, and measure the possible depth needed in future projects.

 

Any Topic suggestions are welcomed. 

     

 

Recognizing Threats.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are my thoughts on recognizing internal threats to the movement.  I would be very happy to read critical comments.

 

 

I would divide internal threats into two basic categories:

 

1.  People who join under conscious false pretenses or who are turned: informants and/or provocateurs|doxxers, and journalists.

 

..... A. The informant, usually from the government at some level, is there to gather information, mainly of two kinds:

.............(i) names and other information about your members: their addresses and places of work in particular, probably car license plate numbers  as well; he is passive, and probably working for some level of government. He is almost certainly paid a modest stipend for his work, although he may also being offered immunity from prosecution for petty crimes and/or being blackmailed for things he would rather the authorities didn't reveal.  (This is how genuine members get turned: they cheated big-time on taxes or a mortgage application, or a wife. The authorities find out about it. Without being totally crude, they let the victim know that if he just passes along some harmless information -- "for everyone's protection" -- things will remain quiet. Or they get tricked into committing something that is technically a fellony: Randy Weaver sold a couple of shotguns whose barrels were supposedly a bit short, legally, to an informant: suddenly, he was facing felony weapons charges ... unless HE became an informant.)   But money is probably the main motive.

 

..............Solution to the problem: Your members should only use 'militia names' at meetings:  Roger Zelniacksy becomes Roger Jones.  This won't keep a determined government informant ignorant forever if they really want to put in resources, but it will be a barrier to the non-government ones without substantial resources.  When your members want to take those photos of everyone in camo cradling their AR15s -- and who can resist? -- let their faces be obscured, ideally at source (your informant is the one with the camera).  Consider how to minimize chances of getting valid license plate numbers when assembling at a meeting -- legally, no fake plates!!!!

............... But basically, even with screening, you will have an informant and he will probably get most peoples' real names.  Sunshine patriots go home now. 

 

......      (ii)  Advanced warning of mass murder.  Sorry, but there have been just enough crazy people -- Timothy McVeigh, rise up, but he's not the only one -- whose madness takes them through the fringes of the militia movement -- and remember we don't have copyright on the word 'militia' anyone can use it --  and who then go on to committ appalling crimes ... so that the authorities feel justified, and are pressured, to try to get some advance warning.  So the informant is listening for crazy talk. "We ought to arrest the governor and try him for treason!!!"  

 

..............Solution to the problem: The key here is:  DON'T SAY CRAZY STUFF. If you've got a member who just can't resist from advertising his manhood by growling about just how big and bad he will be if those liberals go too far, educate him about the dangers of emotional speech.  The Mission Comes First.  This would probably be a good topic to have a group discussion about.  Hopefully we'll soon have some sound legal stuff available on this site which can help explain to members the perils of emoting when the enemy may be listening.

 

 You should go further: keep out of your group people who are congenitally incapable of not saying crazy stuff.  We all say crazy stuff from time to time. We rely on our listeners to know we're just venting a bit, exaggerating for effect.  Well, we've got to try to be disciplined  -- see 'Fire Discipline' - but even then, we may let this or that incautious statement slip out.  No one's perfect. But some people have no control over what they say, and what they say could be very damaging, so they need to encouraged to go elsewhere.  We're not a free group therapy session. The mission comes first, even over our personal feelings.  A patriotic snowflake is still a snowflake. We should pull triggers, not be pulled.

 

.................................And: a militia unit in formation should be pro-active: twenty years ago, the FBI encouraged its people, and other police agencies, to talk to their local militia, because they realized that most of us were not really trying to create hatcheries for cuckoos. (The memo is reprinted here on MyMilitia.  )  I don't know if they have changed their approach ...they seem to have, unfortunately.

 

But if I were head of a militia, or were forming one, I would -- with the membership's knowledge and permission -- write to the local FBI and request a meeting with them, and then explain what you were about, and ask about their concerns.  They're not bogeymen. They're doing a necessary job, and, if sometimes in the past some of their people have overstepped the mark ... well... okay, hey that happens ... it sometimes happens with us, as well.  But the local FBI should know that if someone joins or tries to join your group who is always muttering about not being able to wait until he can serve hot leaden justice on the Muslim Invaders in that mosque down the road, or 'deal with' the Zionist Occupation Government operatives in Hollywood, or teach a lesson to those illegal immigrants at the building site , etc... and seems capable of it ... you'll let them know. 

 

Put it this way: if you met someone at the firing range, and he told you -- with an absolutely straight face, no kidding, apparently meaning what he was saying ... that next week he was going to go down to the local elementary school and burn up a dozen magazines ... would you just walk away?   You should NOT give the FBI the names of your members, nor do you have to. You have the same rights as the Ladies' Thursday Bridge club, because you are not committing nor planning to commit any felonies.  But you're a patriotic citizen who wants to defend his country, and sometimes that means spotting a mass murderer before he can mass murder and doing the right thing about it. ABC.

 

On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt to ask your friendly local FBI contact if he, or friends, has any reason to be suspicious of anyone they know who is in your group. They can only refuse to say anything, and having asked puts your group in a stronger position should you find that you were harboring a Timothy McVeigh, that they knew it, but didn't tell you.

 

........... .... It's annoying to know that you probably have a police informer among you.  Law-abiding Muslims in the US probably feel the same way, because they have got the same situation. But it's the times we live in.

 

 

B. Provocateurs|Doxxers:  these are people working on 'private account': they mean you ill, probably in the short to medium term. They're going for names so that they can 'expose' you, get you fired, frighten your neighbors. The Provocateur (and these can be the same person as the Doxxer) is looking to get you to say, and hopefully, do, stupid things. To get you to fulfill what he 'knows' you want to do anyway: "Let's get some real guns -- some real armament -- let's fill our treasury from the local bank -- let's take care of that loud-mouth commie professor on campus ..."  

 

At the moment, I don't think the government will consciously push too hard in this direction, because they don't want to be accused of 'entrapment'... maybe an informant will encourage foolish talk and draw it further towards actionable stuff, as they seem to have done with the various Muslim would-be terrorists they have captured over the last 15 years ...  and remember that an informant is under pressure from his handlers to supply 'sexy' information, not just that your group voted not to have Millie's fried chicken for the next picnic or will hear a speaker on the Second Amendment at the local Legion Hall next Sunday ... ]  However, I could be wrong. Better safe than sorry.

 

But the real provocateur I would be on the lookout for now would be someone from the AntiFa orbit, wanting to play 'Intelligence Agent' and be a hero.

..............Solution to the problem: I don't think genuine government agents will be easily detected by 'background checks', but 'private' ones may be. So preliminary screening is probably worth doing --- but how do you do it? More on that elsewhere.   The real 'solution' is the same as with government informants:  Modest security to protect the identities of your members - no real surnames, facial photos obscured, license plates obscured. And above all: don't say crazy stuff.  And, if you've read the previous section about turning in provocateurs ... how satisfying it would be to video record an 'undercover' AntiFa proposing that your organization bomb a migrant shelter, and then to turn the recording over to the local FBI.

 

C. Journalists, of the liberal persuasion, have joined militia groups for a few months, under false pretenses, to gather material for an article.  Of course, they will be very alert for anything that can make you seem nutty or dangerous, but they may try to be objective.  They are also more likely to be interested in legal, but objectionable views among your members: white supremacy or casual racist attitudes of any sort; gross sexism; anti-Semitism.  The usual precautions apply here as well: things said casually, in context, may look different if quoted, even honestly, out of context.

 

One note: recent discussion of the militia movement among liberal journalists has sounded a note of disappointment: they didn't find any overt racism!  So they raise the idea that these people (the militia) really are racists, but are just hiding it for tactical reasons. If you have 99 members, with fifty of them being Black, and 1 member who says something that they can interpret as 'racist', you can be sure that this is the quote that will appear in their article -- not necessarily as 'typical', but as present.

 

There ARE liberal journalists who try to be honest and balanced. It is very worthwhile to engage with them. They should be offered the opportunity to interview your leadership, to attend public militia events, etc. But they remain liberals and must see the world in a certain way. The idea of citizens organizing independently of the formal government, and of not being in favor of ever-expanding government power to try to make everyone equal, is not an idea they will be comfortable with.

 

2.  The second main category of internal threat is the 'sincere' person who objectively will weaken, even wreck, your movement: the extreme paranoid, the crazy-talker, the just generally unpleasant and obnoxious boaster and know-it-all, but above all, the Narcissist. The first categories will, if vocal and present in any real number, sterilize your movement: the will repel ordinary people, and attract people like themselves.   Worst of all is the Narcissist, who sees the world in terms of himself at the center, and everyone else in terms of what they can do for him, and in particular whether they are for him or against him.  (I will add references from the professional literature about this well-known personality type later. I become familiar with this problem having recently watched my wife's local church lose a lot of members, and then get split into two bitterly divided groups, by a newly-appointed vicar who was a Narcissist. She was brilliant at turning one person against another, at recruiting an 'insider' clique of strong supporters, at driving out potential rivals. We learned later that she had been asked to leave two previous parishes for exactly the same behavior. The wise church hierarchy finally moved her on to destroy yet another new parish, but ours will never recover.)

 

............Solution to the problem: I think this is the hardest of all internal problems to deal with, because these are not black-and-white categories: we've all got a little bit of the know-it-all in us, we all blurt out crazy things occasionally, we all speculate beyond the data and sometimes wander into Conspiracy-Land. And no doubt the Narcissist lives in all of us as well, even if we usually keep his head pushed down.

 

Unfortunately, not only are the hardest problem to deal with, they are also the potentially the problem with the most power to destroy your unit (and others) from within.  Many, many, many political movements -- and the militia is one -- have seen big, wasteful internal power struggles followed by splits. In fact, there is almost an iron law that predicts this. And these are preceded on a smaller scale by micro-struggles within local groups.  Government informants and provocateurs may play some role in these -- the FBI actively worked to encourage them in the 1950s and 60s. and government informants almost always support the most 'extreme' positions a group can take, which will almost automatically encourage quarrels and splits  - but they're just reacting to what is an idigenous problem.

 

One solution is to build your militia unit only from people you have known well for years,  and who don't fit any of these profiles.  This may not be bad advice, for start-ups.  But eventually we must grow. And grow. And grow some more. This means finding 'new' people and recruiting them. And then sometimes, someone may move to a new area and not know anyone there.

 

So at some point, we face the problem of 'vetting' new would-be members (not the background check, to weed out people with genuine criminal records, or other things in their background -- like recent membership of AntiFa, or recent graduation from the Police Academy) for personal suitability.

 

A serious 'probation period', even if informally, may help.  But I wouldn't be afraid, with incorrigibles, to simply stop notifying them of meetings, or of frankly suggesting that they will not be happy in your group.  The mission comes first.

 

Further notes: running background checks; knowledge of the law; case studies of informants in actual groups.  To come.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 7:45 PM, Doug1943 said:

These are my thoughts on recognizing internal threats to the movement.  I would be very happy to read critical comments.

 

 

I would divide internal threats into two basic categories:

 

1.  People who join under conscious false pretenses or who are turned: informants and/or provocateurs|doxxers, and journalists.

 

..... A. The informant, usually from the government at some level, is there to gather information, mainly of two kinds:

.............(i) names and other information about your members: their addresses and places of work in particular, probably car license plate numbers  as well; he is passive, and probably working for some level of government. He is almost certainly paid a modest stipend for his work, although he may also being offered immunity from prosecution for petty crimes and/or being blackmailed for things he would rather the authorities didn't reveal.  (This is how genuine members get turned: they cheated big-time on taxes or a mortgage application, or a wife. The authorities find out about it. Without being totally crude, they let the victim know that if he just passes along some harmless information -- "for everyone's protection" -- things will remain quiet. Or they get tricked into committing something that is technically a fellony: Randy Weaver sold a couple of shotguns whose barrels were supposedly a bit short, legally, to an informant: suddenly, he was facing felony weapons charges ... unless HE became an informant.)   But money is probably the main motive.

 

..............Solution to the problem: Your members should only use 'militia names' at meetings:  Roger Zelniacksy becomes Roger Jones.  This won't keep a determined government informant ignorant forever if they really want to put in resources, but it will be a barrier to the non-government ones without substantial resources.  When your members want to take those photos of everyone in camo cradling their AR15s -- and who can resist? -- let their faces be obscured, ideally at source (your informant is the one with the camera).  Consider how to minimize chances of getting valid license plate numbers when assembling at a meeting -- legally, no fake plates!!!!

............... But basically, even with screening, you will have an informant and he will probably get most peoples' real names.  Sunshine patriots go home now. 

 

......      (ii)  Advanced warning of mass murder.  Sorry, but there have been just enough crazy people -- Timothy McVeigh, rise up, but he's not the only one -- whose madness takes them through the fringes of the militia movement -- and remember we don't have copyright on the word 'militia' anyone can use it --  and who then go on to committ appalling crimes ... so that the authorities feel justified, and are pressured, to try to get some advance warning.  So the informant is listening for crazy talk. "We ought to arrest the governor and try him for treason!!!"  

 

..............Solution to the problem: The key here is:  DON'T SAY CRAZY STUFF. If you've got a member who just can't resist from advertising his manhood by growling about just how big and bad he will be if those liberals go too far, educate him about the dangers of emotional speech.  The Mission Comes First.  This would probably be a good topic to have a group discussion about.  Hopefully we'll soon have some sound legal stuff available on this site which can help explain to members the perils of emoting when the enemy may be listening.

 

 You should go further: keep out of your group people who are congenitally incapable of not saying crazy stuff.  We all say crazy stuff from time to time. We rely on our listeners to know we're just venting a bit, exaggerating for effect.  Well, we've got to try to be disciplined  -- see 'Fire Discipline' - but even then, we may let this or that incautious statement slip out.  No one's perfect. But some people have no control over what they say, and what they say could be very damaging, so they need to encouraged to go elsewhere.  We're not a free group therapy session. The mission comes first, even over our personal feelings.  A patriotic snowflake is still a snowflake. We should pull triggers, not be pulled.

 

.................................And: a militia unit in formation should be pro-active: twenty years ago, the FBI encouraged its people, and other police agencies, to talk to their local militia, because they realized that most of us were not really trying to create hatcheries for cuckoos. (The memo is reprinted here on MyMilitia.  )  I don't know if they have changed their approach ...they seem to have, unfortunately.

 

But if I were head of a militia, or were forming one, I would -- with the membership's knowledge and permission -- write to the local FBI and request a meeting with them, and then explain what you were about, and ask about their concerns.  They're not bogeymen. They're doing a necessary job, and, if sometimes in the past some of their people have overstepped the mark ... well... okay, hey that happens ... it sometimes happens with us, as well.  But the local FBI should know that if someone joins or tries to join your group who is always muttering about not being able to wait until he can serve hot leaden justice on the Muslim Invaders in that mosque down the road, or 'deal with' the Zionist Occupation Government operatives in Hollywood, or teach a lesson to those illegal immigrants at the building site , etc... and seems capable of it ... you'll let them know. 

 

Put it this way: if you met someone at the firing range, and he told you -- with an absolutely straight face, no kidding, apparently meaning what he was saying ... that next week he was going to go down to the local elementary school and burn up a dozen magazines ... would you just walk away?   You should NOT give the FBI the names of your members, nor do you have to. You have the same rights as the Ladies' Thursday Bridge club, because you are not committing nor planning to commit any felonies.  But you're a patriotic citizen who wants to defend his country, and sometimes that means spotting a mass murderer before he can mass murder and doing the right thing about it. ABC.

 

On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt to ask your friendly local FBI contact if he, or friends, has any reason to be suspicious of anyone they know who is in your group. They can only refuse to say anything, and having asked puts your group in a stronger position should you find that you were harboring a Timothy McVeigh, that they knew it, but didn't tell you.

 

........... .... It's annoying to know that you probably have a police informer among you.  Law-abiding Muslims in the US probably feel the same way, because they have got the same situation. But it's the times we live in.

 

 

B. Provocateurs|Doxxers:  these are people working on 'private account': they mean you ill, probably in the short to medium term. They're going for names so that they can 'expose' you, get you fired, frighten your neighbors. The Provocateur (and these can be the same person as the Doxxer) is looking to get you to say, and hopefully, do, stupid things. To get you to fulfill what he 'knows' you want to do anyway: "Let's get some real guns -- some real armament -- let's fill our treasury from the local bank -- let's take care of that loud-mouth commie professor on campus ..."  

 

At the moment, I don't think the government will consciously push too hard in this direction, because they don't want to be accused of 'entrapment'... maybe an informant will encourage foolish talk and draw it further towards actionable stuff, as they seem to have done with the various Muslim would-be terrorists they have captured over the last 15 years ...  and remember that an informant is under pressure from his handlers to supply 'sexy' information, not just that your group voted not to have Millie's fried chicken for the next picnic or will hear a speaker on the Second Amendment at the local Legion Hall next Sunday ... ]  However, I could be wrong. Better safe than sorry.

 

But the real provocateur I would be on the lookout for now would be someone from the AntiFa orbit, wanting to play 'Intelligence Agent' and be a hero.

..............Solution to the problem: I don't think genuine government agents will be easily detected by 'background checks', but 'private' ones may be. So preliminary screening is probably worth doing --- but how do you do it? More on that elsewhere.   The real 'solution' is the same as with government informants:  Modest security to protect the identities of your members - no real surnames, facial photos obscured, license plates obscured. And above all: don't say crazy stuff.  And, if you've read the previous section about turning in provocateurs ... how satisfying it would be to video record an 'undercover' AntiFa proposing that your organization bomb a migrant shelter, and then to turn the recording over to the local FBI.

 

C. Journalists, of the liberal persuasion, have joined militia groups for a few months, under false pretenses, to gather material for an article.  Of course, they will be very alert for anything that can make you seem nutty or dangerous, but they may try to be objective.  They are also more likely to be interested in legal, but objectionable views among your members: white supremacy or casual racist attitudes of any sort; gross sexism; anti-Semitism.  The usual precautions apply here as well: things said casually, in context, may look different if quoted, even honestly, out of context.

 

One note: recent discussion of the militia movement among liberal journalists has sounded a note of disappointment: they didn't find any overt racism!  So they raise the idea that these people (the militia) really are racists, but are just hiding it for tactical reasons. If you have 99 members, with fifty of them being Black, and 1 member who says something that they can interpret as 'racist', you can be sure that this is the quote that will appear in their article -- not necessarily as 'typical', but as present.

 

There ARE liberal journalists who try to be honest and balanced. It is very worthwhile to engage with them. They should be offered the opportunity to interview your leadership, to attend public militia events, etc. But they remain liberals and must see the world in a certain way. The idea of citizens organizing independently of the formal government, and of not being in favor of ever-expanding government power to try to make everyone equal, is not an idea they will be comfortable with.

 

2.  The second main category of internal threat is the 'sincere' person who objectively will weaken, even wreck, your movement: the extreme paranoid, the crazy-talker, the just generally unpleasant and obnoxious boaster and know-it-all, but above all, the Narcissist. The first categories will, if vocal and present in any real number, sterilize your movement: the will repel ordinary people, and attract people like themselves.   Worst of all is the Narcissist, who sees the world in terms of himself at the center, and everyone else in terms of what they can do for him, and in particular whether they are for him or against him.  (I will add references from the professional literature about this well-known personality type later. I become familiar with this problem having recently watched my wife's local church lose a lot of members, and then get split into two bitterly divided groups, by a newly-appointed vicar who was a Narcissist. She was brilliant at turning one person against another, at recruiting an 'insider' clique of strong supporters, at driving out potential rivals. We learned later that she had been asked to leave two previous parishes for exactly the same behavior. The wise church hierarchy finally moved her on to destroy yet another new parish, but ours will never recover.)

 

............Solution to the problem: I think this is the hardest of all internal problems to deal with, because these are not black-and-white categories: we've all got a little bit of the know-it-all in us, we all blurt out crazy things occasionally, we all speculate beyond the data and sometimes wander into Conspiracy-Land. And no doubt the Narcissist lives in all of us as well, even if we usually keep his head pushed down.

 

Unfortunately, not only are the hardest problem to deal with, they are also the potentially the problem with the most power to destroy your unit (and others) from within.  Many, many, many political movements -- and the militia is one -- have seen big, wasteful internal power struggles followed by splits. In fact, there is almost an iron law that predicts this. And these are preceded on a smaller scale by micro-struggles within local groups.  Government informants and provocateurs may play some role in these -- the FBI actively worked to encourage them in the 1950s and 60s. and government informants almost always support the most 'extreme' positions a group can take, which will almost automatically encourage quarrels and splits  - but they're just reacting to what is an idigenous problem.

 

One solution is to build your militia unit only from people you have known well for years,  and who don't fit any of these profiles.  This may not be bad advice, for start-ups.  But eventually we must grow. And grow. And grow some more. This means finding 'new' people and recruiting them. And then sometimes, someone may move to a new area and not know anyone there.

 

So at some point, we face the problem of 'vetting' new would-be members (not the background check, to weed out people with genuine criminal records, or other things in their background -- like recent membership of AntiFa, or recent graduation from the Police Academy) for personal suitability.

ind out where there information comes from and try to verify it. 

A serious 'probation period', even if informally, may help.  But I wouldn't be afraid, with incorrigibles, to simply stop notifying them of meetings, or of frankly suggesting that they will not be happy in your group.  The mission comes first.

 

Further notes: running background checks; knowledge of the law; case studies of informants in actual groups.  To come.

 

Thank you for this well thought out reply.  I agree with your thoughts. Today there are a lot of posers. They can be those in the media trying to find the "Big story".  Im also concerned about law enforcement. After our last administration they portrayed the militias as a group of extremist which could be former vets to Christians or right wing party members. I think some were discussed in this article. Be careful and on the look out.  Yet, don't necessarily be afraid of those sounding an alarm. Find out the source of there information and try to verify it. There are other signs to look for as well. Yet, I found the article to touch on some of the information needed and well as the reply above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...