4 comments on “Comments on Leaderless Resistance, from a Professional

  1. To suggest or even to dismiss the relevancy of the LR is irresponsible and in the same breath suggest that SF force or forces are going to save us is bordering on the absurd. Now I won’t sit here and say there is no part SF won’t play in the grand scheme of things but for myself i won’t be waiting for them to relieve me from the suck. If SF are going to do something what are they waiting on? Could they be waiting for the dismissed /ineffective LR’s to make the first move? Inquiring minds wanna know

  2. Gary Hunt permalink

    We should not confuse Committees of Safety with Committees of Correspondence, though as time went on, the latter was incorporated into the former. Another misconception is that the Committees were comprised of “the members… were appointed by their colonies’ legislative bodies. This is absolutely misrepresentative of the fact. The Committees began at the local level. The initiated the call for the first, and subsequent, Continental Congresses. They were selected, locally, and many of the Committees had been in existence for decades prior to the War.

    In the few years before the war, many Committees, independent of the legislative body, declared independence from British rule, especially in Massachusetts, after the passage of the “Massachusetts Government Act”. For the most part, either they endorsed existing members of the legislative body to participate in the Continental Congress, or they did not, depending on the character of the person in question. To assume that the British approved legislative bodies “appointed” those whom this article would define s “insurgents”, is ludicrous.
    The Committees of Correspondence were not established coordinate ” their activities between each other or with the Continental Congress through a chain of command’, is equally erroneous, until after April 19, 1775, when the Congress was sitting, tough oblivious to what was transpiring in Lexington and Concord, until word reached them and they changed their whole demeanor.
    Insurgent is an interesting word. Though there are various definitions, basically, it is someone who rebels absent existing civil laws and government. This does not consider either laws or government, only the relationship.

    Suppose a government was taken over by insidious methods, or enacted laws outside of their authority. Are they, then, the rebels, as they have undermined a government or enacted laws contrary to the authority grated them? History provides many examples of such actions, and, particularly, our ancestral English history, which lead to the Magna Carta and the subsequent Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.
    If such undermining of government is presumed to have been conducted, then, will, who, really, are the insurgents? And, who are those who are trying to restore that which was presumed to be their birthright? Remember, the colonists rallied against the British Government that failed to recognize their rights as Englishmen under the British Constitution.

    Another group of people came under the heading of “Sons of Liberty”. And, although they were in contact with the Committees, they made their decision based upon their determination, not at the behest of the Committee. For example, the Committees never took credit (and it probably wasn’t deserved) for the riots in New York, or the Boston Tea Party. They were the epitome of Leaderless Resistance, in that the players were also the decision makers. And, as the French Maquis, who were operating independently, initially, both were absorbed into higher levels of control, as time went on. The initial autonomy was necessary until they could determine just which side others were on.

    Only two comments on the Order. They cannot be compared to what Che Guevera did. To assume the government line on their methodology is not objective, though it is obedient. Second, do you know if they dispersed money to other organizations? The money wasn’t recovered; however, there were a number of organizations in existence, at that time, that may well have benefited from the work of the Order. Posse Comitatus comes to mind, and the managed to avoid infiltration and still able to communicate with other units, for quite some time. Both, however, eventually failed, mostly because there was not enough disenchantment with government to create a viable source of support in the general public. However, times are rapidly changing, and will continue to do so, eve with such naysayers endeavoring to water down those efforts.
    I find it interesting that the actions of a miscreant, Eric Rudolph, is utilized to paint, with a broad brush, all who might object to many government policies. However, some support Eric, not for what he did, rather, because he did something.

    I am surprised that you chose to exclude Tim McVeigh. After all, he had a loose knit organization, and, he was able to accomplish the task that he had selected, hoping that others would have the courage to follow suit and begin going after the federal government.
    On that note, I will say that Leaderless Resistance is the only means by which infiltration can be avoid, especially in the early stages of “The Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Do the search. And, you can go about your “grown up business”, whatever it may be. As for me, I will continue to do what I can to return this country to what my children and grandchildren deserve.

  3. Two different subjects, in my opinion.

    To separate the ideas being discussed, first, what SF types will or won’t accomplish or when or if they act is speculative at best and is known only among themselves. The same can be said of any group of like minded individuals, background notwithstanding. Personally, I agree with you in one point: I don’t look to SF types to provide any relief when SHTF. I do, however, look to them to provide what they’ve been trained to do, and, at this point, the few out there who’ve made themselves known are doing exactly that: Providing good, quality training to anyone who shows up. Their primary job is to teach, after all.

    Now, on to LR. LR, as a strategy and/or operational concept is not going to work for one very simple reason: No common belief or value system of the participants that would ensure LR participants had the same objective and will do what is necessary to achieve that objective, to include personal and group sacrifice. The only examples I’ve been able to find on LR that have been successful (if you define success as being able to survive and bring your children up to fight for generations) to a point are those whose members have an extremely strong religious world view and see their role as demanded by the religious beliefs involved as a condition for salvation, redemption, or entry to heaven. Now, compare that to the so-called ‘patriot community’ as it is currently. It is comprised of aetheists, anarchists, Christians, agnostics, conservatives, the occassional old school democrat (pre-1968 values), libertines, libertarians, hedonists, and, of course, all of us are right and have THE answer. The internecine ego-centric arguing precludes even an agreement on political objectives, such as ‘Restoration of Constitutional government’ let alone any sort of operational networking in a SHTF scenario.

    I happen to agree with the author of the original article that most groups would most likely devolve into bandit types in a LR environment because of the lack of accountability or consequence for unlawful actions. I also believe that AO infrastructure, leading to state, regional and finally national infrastructure would be necessary for success in the scenario painted by the author.

    Leaders execute plans; plans must support operational objectives and overall strategies. Even the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth had a 500 year plan which they followed. By the way, they were extremely homogenous in their religious beliefs and were willing to sacrifice everything. The Founders all had similar religious beliefs about liberty and were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to achieve their goals. The War for Independence was not fought as LR, and those groups operating independently had the same objective and subordinated themselves to ‘regular’ units when the two met (generally speaking, with agreements on conditions of service).

    Point being, as an overall strategy, I don’t believe LR is useful in and of itself. I do believe, with the right level of training, LR could be used as an operational methodology by a cadre of very well-trained people who split up throughout an AO, state, or region and began force multiplication initiatives, because they’d all have the same common objective (politically and operationally), same accountability to the leadership, and the leaders would discipline the members in the carrying out of their tasks.

    I do appreciate, however, the chance to discuss differing points of view.

    Thanks for reading and commenting.

  4. Pingback: Land Nav Skills- A Consolidation of Posts – Mason Dixon Survivalist Association

Feel free to comment! Debates are welcome, so long as they add to the discussion. Ad hominem attacks, accusations, uncontrolled vitriol, thread hijacks, personal threats, or any comment that otherwise detracts from DTG's stated mission will not be approved or posted. Repeat violators will be banned.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s