Leaderless Resistance

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.
FROM HERE

*****

Read and pay particular attention to the part about not targeting family members which is something that the coward named Kerodin advocates and encourages (others to do) – but when you don’t have the skills or balls to attack the real people that you have a grudge against, you gotta pick on somebody, right Sammy?

This entry was posted in III Percenter, Patriots and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Leaderless Resistance

  1. better not say says:

    Targeting a support system is valid.
    Targeting those on your side is not.

    • Wirecutter says:

      You do NOT target non-combatants. Period. If you do you’re nothing but a fucking terrorist.

      • better not say says:

        Tell it to the Union. US Grant in particular.
        And countless other countries thru history. This has always been warfare. Fair Fight is a term the eventual winner tries to impose on the eventual loser.
        Are you willing to lose everything for your concept? Do you think the Evil Ones will fight fair” Are you willing to see countless families of your compatriots suffer and die because you didn’t have the stomach to stop the Evil using any means possible when you could?
        Do you think they don’t target YOUR side’s families now? You know that as well as i.

        Let’s be civil here too. I respect your site, your rules.

        • Wirecutter says:

          Sure, I’ll be civil – ya haven’t called me a bitch yet!

          Um, I replied to Sunny just now with my views so if you’d read those you’d save me some typing.
          These are legitimate questions and all I can do is give my opinion and convictions. I’m not saying they won’t change when things do kick off because hostilities tend to bring out the nasty in everybody.

          Hey, it’s a hot topic and everybody’s got a different view.

          • better not say says:

            Fair enough.

            Occurred to me later that I need to make sure you know I was talking about the upcoming struggle with World Evil and not the infighting that you have been subjected to. I agree with you completely on the latter.

        • Ragnar says:

          Not just the “union”. Look at WWII and LeMay (aka the USG writ large). Pure evil. They flattened Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dresden, etc. Then of course there’s FDR and the T-man who had no problem burning down Tokyo and making Hiroshima and Nagasaki glow in the dark. The gubbment targets non-combatants like it was free. And let’s not forget Waco either.

          We should not stoop to that level.

          • Bibliotheca Servare says:

            Reprisal is not only a valid, but a *central* tenet of the Law of War. Absent consequences (equal or greater than the crime that necessitated the reprisal in the first place) the Law of War is a meaningless bunch of bullshit.

            In other words, if “they” “stoop to that level” and the reprisal for their violation of the Laws of War is anything less than swift, brutal, and devastating, then all bets are off.

            Tom Kratman is an (I’d be inclined to say *the*) expert on the subject, but the gist is *we* can’t rely on “the enemy” (whoever that is, at the time) “playing fair”. All we can do is decide (as Western nations did a while back) what sort of conduct we consider acceptable, or tolerable, in war, and what sort of conduct (such as targeting families, hospitals, etc) we consider grounds for just reprisal.

            Then, when/if the enemy crosses that line, “we” must enact/conduct that reprisal without any regard for mercy, compassion, or the normal Laws of War in a “non-reprisal” combat scenario. It sounds distasteful because it is. But there’s no alternative.

            Principles are just convenient hills to die on, unless they’re backed by the will to punish violations of those principles with force matching, or exceeding the nature of the violation.

            IOW “you break the rules, the rules break you.” If you step outside the lines, you step outside the protection of the lines, as well, at least for duration of the consequent reprisal.

            That’s why spies are summarily executed in wartime, why only the most despicable monsters use hospitals as bases for fighting from, and why those same hospitals consequently become valid targets.

            Sorry for the wall of text…basically no, we shouldn’t “stoop to that level” but we *must* return *their* “stooping” in kind, with interest. Anything less would be to invite total suspension of the Law of War, and all the horrors that would accompany that madness. It’s simply not an option.

            *Never* initiate a violation of the Laws of War, but *always* punish violations of the Law of War. Or at least that’s my (limited) understanding of the concept.

            God bless! :-)

            • Wirecutter says:

              Then, when/if the enemy crosses that line, “we” must enact/conduct that reprisal without any regard for mercy, compassion, or the normal Laws of War in a “non-reprisal” combat scenario. It sounds distasteful because it is. But there’s no alternative.

              Yes there is an alternative – shoot the bastards that did the crime, not their families.

      • Andrew says:

        Problem is defining non-combatant. Sure, it sounds totally not-cool to target families of the enemy, but in a total-war/civil-war situation, what does non-combatant really mean?

        Everyone pretty much agrees that in any war type, blowing up a supply depot or a repair depot is totally kosher (except in some parts of the middle east.) Attacking direct support of war-fighters is also okay to various levels (like not attacking medics as long as medic isn’t carrying or resisting.)

        So, in a civil-war/total-war situation, isn’t the support, aid and comfort provided by family members to a war-fighter the same as the supply and repair depot?

        No, I don’t condone attacking ‘innocents’ but I do acknowledge that this is a real gut-eating soul-searching question l have to ask myself. How far is ‘far enough’ or ‘too far’ or ‘not far enough’ is a very difficult question.

        Yes, I know of instances where ‘non-combatants’ are legitimate targets. I know of many more instances where ‘acceptable levels of civilian casualties’ are an acceptable.

        Would I ever attack ‘non-combatants’? Dunno. Don’t want to be pushed into a situation where I have to find out. I think I can, but I wonder if I could, even in an end-of-the-world situation.

        I don’t want it to get so bad I have to find out.

        And, I hate philosophy.

      • warhorse says:

        half of “not targeting families” is to drive the point home that we’re reasonable people. you stop your bad actions, we stop shooting the bad actors.

        the moment we light up someone’s wife and kids is the moment they show the world we’re rabid animals and need to be exterminated.

        also, the other side of that coin is if they target our families, we get to show the world that THEY are the rabid animals, and we are just fighting to be left alone.

        once you lose the moral high ground, YOU NEVER GET IT BACK.

        • Wirecutter says:

          Yessir, absolutely correct.

          • warhorse says:

            I have zero problems with walking up to some jackbooted thug’s wife in the middle of a grocery store.and telling her he needs to quit, before something bad happens to him. or handing his kid an envelope “hey, give this to your dad for me” and it’s a nicely worded “quit now you sonovabitch. your family is off limits, but you are not”

            I’d much rather have someone quit than have to shoot them. and “I know where you live. I know what your family looks like” is a damn good incentive to take a long vacation or find a different line of work.

            “Oh, I almost forgot—I guess you’d want to give all these thugs an alternative to being executed, so you’d
            throw in a graceful way out, like ‘Public notice in the Wall Street Journal classifieds of resignation from
            government service or from law enforcement duties shall secure absolution from past crimes. Any return to
            government service shall reinstate the death sentence’. from the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross

  2. Larkins says:

    “I have no problem – at all – with any Patriot moving toward the sound of gunfire.

    I only take issue with provocateurs who insist on trying to shame Patriot X for choosing to stay close to home & hearth.”.

    -Kerodin

    • Wirecutter says:

      Fuck Kerodin. You notice he’s always trying to incite others to move to the sound of gunfire while he stays close to home & hearth?

      • Larkins says:

        Half his schtick is calling out/shaming people for not acting. You should just ignore his stupid ass. He only ever comes out of his hole now to instigate you so that he gets page views when you call him out.

        • Wirecutter says:

          Darius tells me that he’s posted the same post about me 3 times on 2 of his websites in the last 4 days – and I’ve left him alone for 2 weeks now. I think it’s funny – it just goes to show everybody else how obsessed he is with me and how unhinged he is in general.

  3. Sunny says:

    Fourth Generation Warfare – isn’t that where the media, the lying scuzbucket so called journalists who are working to establish NON-LIBERTY in the country – isn’t that where they are targeted because they are actually working for those who would enslave us?
    Are they considered non combatants?
    And do you think that innocents won’t be harmed in the up coming shenanigans?
    sunny

    • Wirecutter says:

      Hard questions to answer, I’ll give you that.
      I myself won’t have a hand in targeting a journalist as much as I despise 99% of them. Nor will I target the cafeteria worker in the federal building like Sammy advocates. Legitimate targets in my eyes are combatants and their leadership.
      And yeah, I know innocents will be harmed, it’s a sad fact of life in any conflict, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The simple fact is that for any revolution or uprising to succeed, it needs the support of the people and targeting what they perceive to be innocents will only turn them against us.

      • warhorse says:

        if scammy had any brains he’d be trying to get our people in those “cafeteria worker” jobs. it’s called “undercover work”. a pint of sweat put into intelligence work saves gallons of blood later on down the line.

        heck I have janitor from a cleaning service as part of the “sons of stark” http://sonsofstark.blogspot.com/ about once a week he is at the headquarters of some pretty powerful unions here in NH and boy does he get us some good info. I know a few people who work at some of the buildings that house various parts of state government. they give us intel too. in the future, they can be counted on to get us access without having to break windows or pick locks.

    • The media became legitimate targets when then president Bill Clinton had a tv station bombed while broadcasting. ROE changed by the other side. And then, you’d have to really be careful, because some journalists are actually objective, and do not spin their so-called reports. Can’t take them out, because you lose the ability to have your side told as it actually happened.

      Tokyo Rose was a legitimate target; so was Goebbels. Their families? No way, unless the family members (that were of majority age) in question were of their own volition actively acting either in the same manner.

      The janitor working in an enemy building? Nope.

      The lady working in the payroll department processing claims of whatever type? Nope.

      You get the idea. The two examples mentioned above would be great recruits to provide raw information that could be useful……kill them, and you galvanize the other side. Win them over, and you demoralize the other side.

      Yes, non-combatants (innocents) will be hurt/killed. The idea is not to purposely target them, and in ensuring you don’t, you have the moral high ground, and having that, even if the conflict is lost, when you die, you will be able to face your Maker straight up with no excuses.

      Personally, I don’t care to have anyone in my NPT without a moral compass….period.

      My .02

      • rightwingterrorist says:

        Same for educators.
        Know who teaches your children.
        Switch schools or do it yourself.

  4. rightwingterrorist says:

    Here’s something that follows along this discussion.
    Keep it in mind.

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2988-how-the-globalists-will-attempt-to-control-populations-post-collapse

  5. 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 kerodin, and it’s just to rule with your brand of “rightful liberty” (“First we kill ALL the muslims”, attack the cafeteria worker, run a kaper, 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 kerodin’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,
    “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”.
    Just like his use of the terms “Serious” and “Patriot”, it is used to evoke an emotional response that says “FUCK YEAH, that’s Liberty!”, “FUCK YEAH, I’m Serious!” or “FUCK YEAH, I’m a Patriot!”. These terms are meant to manipulate you into agreement with kerodin, because no one wants to be thought of as not being for “Liberty”, not being a “Patriot”, or not being “Serious” regarding there “Liberty” or “Patriotism”.

  6. lineman says:

    The determining factor for me would be is the stage of the war we are in at the time…At this stage we are in most definitely not…At the later stages well if it would cause more harm by leaving them alive then you would have to make that hard choice then…As a war progresses though there are less and less innocents… I think an example that would be in that movie about the Bielski Brothers where they go eliminate that man and his sons because they were helping the Nazis round up the Jews…They ended up killing his wife as well… Was she at that time a innocent still because she had to know what her husband was doing…Myself I don’t think she was an innocent at that stage of the war…Timing determines a lot in my opinion…

    • Wirecutter says:

      Like you, I think as the conflict drags on the lines will become more and more blurred. That’s a situation that will have to be addressed at that time.

  7. Kit Perez says:

    Your comment here: “for any revolution or uprising to succeed, it needs the support of the people and targeting what they perceive to be innocents will only turn them against us.” Absolutely on point.

    There is absolutely no debate possible on the need for public support in a guerrilla-style conflict and/or open source insurgency. The best way to erode that public support is to target people traditionally seen as non-combatants, even if those parties are “providing aid and support” by virtue of being family/friends/network.

    Perception is reality, and if we’re perceived as targeting people that THEY consider innocent–even if they’re non-combatants but technically not innocent–we put ourselves in a moral and ethical place that we won’t be able to get out of. It’s hard enough to disavow the occasional moron who decides to go rogue and does something abhorrent. If we allow this on a grand scale we will screw ourselves six ways to Sunday.

  8. Sanders says:

    I’ve glanced through the comments and have not seen one reference to the novel, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross.

    While fiction, it was a tome involving leaderless resistance, and got an awful lot of people to change the way they think about such things.

    • warhorse says:

      well I referenced it, quoted it in fact LOL you must have missed it.

      “Oh, I almost forgot—I guess you’d want to give all these thugs an alternative to being executed, so you’d throw in a graceful way out, like ‘Public notice in the Wall Street Journal classifieds of resignation from government service or from law enforcement duties shall secure absolution from past crimes. Any return to government service shall reinstate the death sentence’. from the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross

      we’re not bloodthirsty animals, and we need to make sure they have zero opportunity to portray us as such. an “easy out” like this gives us the moral high ground, as does the “no targeting of innocents”.

      honestly, if I do find out someone is targeting innocents, I will personally hang them in the town square at midnight along with anyone in their group that allowed it to happen.

Comments are welcome, but moderated out of necessity.