Nothing left now but . . .

Or to Arms.


The Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette

March 6, 1998, Issue #10-98

ABC's of Destruction -- Aryans, BioWar, & Clinton


Purpose: Our purpose is to serve the Resistance/Patriot Movement as an occassional gazette providing news and commentary favorable to our Cause in a format accessible to the general public.

The news from e-mail listings is shown in preformatted text. This news will be attributed to its authors/editors and is entirely the opinion of that particular author/editor.
One of the reasons for this is to cut down on the spamming and foolishness inherent in raw e-mail in order to provide a forum for discussion of Resistance Movement issues.

Commentary is in regular format and is solely the opinions of the Editor and Staff of Modern Militiaman Internet Gazette.

Editor Martin Lindstedt

Fable of Contents

1. This Issue's Editorial Commentary
2. Principles of Biological Warfare -- by Martin Lindstedt
3. Back to the Bay of Camels -- Eric Margolis of The Toronto Sun
4. Evil Empire Has Internal Dialogue Regarding Its Eventual Destruction -- from the CFR rag Foreign Affairs by Richard K. Betts, CFR wonk
5. Let 'Em Live In Fear -- by Leonard Pitts, Jacksonville [Florida] Daily News
6. We Educated Our Enemies to Destroy Us, Iraq's Dr. Germ -- Melborne [Australia] Herald Sun
7. Origins of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction -- Reuters, 02/12/98
8. Fight One Dog, You Gotta Fight 'Em All -- U.S. News & World Report, 02/23/98
9.A. Proof of U.S. False Arrests & Propaganda in Anthrax "Plot" -- Michael Johnson
9.B. Just Suppose -- Brad Metcalf
10.A. Of Anthrax and "Aryans" -- The Hoffmann Wire of 02/20/98
10.B. The Conspiracy Against Larry Wayne Harris -- Terry W. Strough
11. Common-Sense Evacuation of Biowar-Contaminated Areas -- Deep013
12. Return Fire! Letters to the Editor
13. Further Links for More Information



The Biological War Inevitable, Part II

Back in July of 1997 in the Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette #7-97, I predicted that biological warfare was indeed inevitable. We are now eight months closer to that inevitability. Back then, there were rumors of biological warfare plottings on the part of the U.S. regime, the Iranians, and the various anti-government groups that formed in response to the U.S. regime's criminal tyrannical activities. The same rumors still fly, concerning the same players, but the basis for these rumors have since been revealed to be horribly altogether so true. Anybody can use and successfully deploy biological warfare agents.

We forget that biological warfare has been with us for a long time. The Black Death that ravaged Europe in 1348-1351 has been traced to the Mongols catapulting corpses in a town they had besieged in the Crimea in 1348. Ships evacuating the town carried the Bubonic Plague to Italy, thence to Spain, France, Germany, England, Scandanavia, where it took at least one-third of the population, sometimes more. American whiskey traders sometimes deliberately sold smallpox blankets to the non-immune Indians, to clear the proposed settlement of their tribal lands. The Assyrians are credited with biological warfare as well, as far back as the 7th Century B.C.E.

Yet these efforts are crude compared to the age of biological weapons which lie ahead. The atomic bomb, with which we were concerned with when we were fighting communism, is but the outgrowth of physics, a science thought up in the last half of the 19th Century and perfected within the first half of the 20th Century. The limits of nuclear weaponry is that for all practical purpose they are but the outgrowth of gunpowder weapons. Yes, a nuclear weapon has a substantially larger bang than the largest cannon can deliver, but in its applications by military men have been treated substantially as blast and bombing weapons superior only in its scope to conventional explosives, as witness its delivery by aircraft, missle, or even by cannon.

Biology concerns itself with the science of life. The science of life can be harnessed to be the science of death -- human death -- as the smallest forms of life are unleashed to form agents of death against humanity. All it takes is but the will to do so, as the science of life has progressed with the invention of genetic technology to where new pathogens can be brought into being by gene-splicing, the creation of new deadly forms of life, as opposed to the 60 year-old method of breeding natural pathogens such as anthrax to serve biological warfare.

Yet both the subtle methods of biological warfare, such as gene-splicing viruses such as ebola and smallpox, and the crude methods, such as collecting natural anthrax spores and culturing them by exposure to antibiotics to create military-grade anthrax immune to all known antibiotics, are possible today. Countries such as the former U.S.S.R and the present U.S.S.A. have created super-viruses while Third-World countries such as Iraq are stuck with culturing anthrax or indigenous camel pox, and aggrieved and restive populations of these tyrannical countries consider, then implement culturing crude, but effective matural anthrax spores. The united States develops the biological equivalent of the mini-gatling gun, while the U.S.S.R and China have 50 cal. machineguns, Iraq has an AK-47, and aggrieved elements of these tyrannical regimes have acquired bolt-actions and flintlocks aimed at their home regimes' backs. All these hostile elements are locked together, hating one another, within a firing range of an acre. Given all the weaponry involved, and the measure of hatred, it is but a matter of time before the shooting starts and almost everyone is killed. The very first shot is guaranteed to kill, and the subsequent shots are no less lethal.

So what is lacking is a mastery of the political forms given this new reality. The current old politics of tyranny rested firmy on gunpowder weaponry wherein political power grew out of the barrel of a gun, and given enough guns absolute political power was assured. The gunpowder weaponry to enforce terror favored the terror of the masses against the individual or smaller grouping, and the better organized the masses were in using gunpowder weaponry, the better the political will of the rulers of these political masses could be enforced.

Edged weaponry, and the age of feudalism, were destroyed by the usages of gunpowder. Where feudalism still existed at the turn of the century, it ended up being destroyed by the modern nation-state at the turn of the 19th Century. The British, with their political organization of constitutional monarchy butchered from afar with Maxim and rifle fire the spear-armed squares of Fuzzy-Wuzzies, ruled by kings and prophets in the Sudan around 1895. The Italians, with their dictatorship of Mussolini machine-gunned entire regiments of spear-chucking Ethiopians of the feudalistic Haile Selassie. So we can see that weaponry -- the means of enforcing government coercion -- shapes the political shape of the nation, whose ruling classes always reserve unto themselves a monopoly of force. Edged weapons brought about feudalism. Gunpowder brought about the modern nation-state.

But what form of regime does biological weaponry bring about? What political changes are brought about by biological weaponry?

Biological weaponry can be made by very small groups of people, or even just one person acting alone. The value of the masses is negated absolutely in favor of brainpower of the individual. One individual, working alone, and in secret, can create a weapon of mass destruction. And by working alone, and in secret, that one individual can strike at any time, undetected, and carry out his will. The monopoly of violence, the balance of terror has thus shifted to the launcher of a shot which comes out of the dark. Since political power is measured by the ability to exercise force, and force is derived from the willingness and ability to use violence and create terror, the structure of the social order will/must change because it has no other choice.
No future society will be able to maintain a big government. In the prophetic words of Frank Herbert in his 1982 novel The White Plague, a biologist says:

"Of what use is a big government when a single individual can destroy it? Governments will have to be small enough where you know every one of your neighbors. . . . . But who would dare attack his neighbor when one survivor can exterminate the attackers. . . . . Who would dare maintain a military force when the possession of such a force is an invitation to disaster, keeping your populace in constant peril? Your military forces cannot practice its arts upon its neighbors. The old weapons are outmoded."

Even the Russian scientist in the book knows that his social order, a relatively efficient police state, cannot work in the new reality, because what happens if you shoot the wrong scientists? Or the plague mutates? Or another plague is created by other nationalities' scientists? Who then, will create the vaccine?

So the new biological weaponry, in addition to outmoding the old gunpowder/atomic weaponry has destroyed the political basis behind all current social orders. Biological weaponry, striking at unprepared civilian populations will rip right through them just as Hitler's machine-gun armed panzers destroyed the charging Polish cavalry. The regime that ill-leads its obsolete military machine to destruction will be overthrown, just as the Polish government was replaced after its unconditional surrender and partition in 1939. So too, will be the foolish Clinton regime, starting a foreign war against Iraq and all its Arab brethren and its Pan-Islamic fundamentalist allies who regard it as the Great Satan. Meanwhile, internal dissent will turn deadly, as aggrieved anti-regime forces create, then use, crude biological weaponry against the police state that murders and oppresses them.

So in this new reality, the necessity for wisdom and justice in both foreign and domestic policies becomes the sine qua non for survival. Yet while the necessity of civilized and lawful behavior on the part of the ruling elites becomes greater and greater, the supply is nonexistant. Clinton's toying with disaster with the Iraqis, and the moronic majority of Republican kongress-kritters ensure that foreign policy regarding the biologically-armed Iraq and its allies is equivalent to the behavior of a malicious five-year-old bully armed with a submachinegun wanting to stomp the heads in of a den of rattlesnakes. Sooner or later the little monster is going to get bit -- regardless of how many snakes get shredded by bullets. And for what? So a morally degenerate and politically bankrupt mass herd of Amerikan mattoids can get their feebleminded interest off Slick Willie's spittle-slicked willie? Never before has so much been risked by so many for so few.

In domestic policy, the lives of the amoral majority are hostage to the actions of a police state run by the Keystone Kops in favor of the criminal injustice system. Remember, it only takes a fanatic copying a page off the Larry Wayne Harris School of Microbiology to destroy Hillary's village.

But regrettably, surveying the state of the current social order and the rottenness of the decayed political elites running it towards its destruction, anyone with a clear mind's-eye to see reality knows that the situation is hopeless. The need for change is several orders of magnitude beyond the ability to change to meet the new conditions for social survival. The task would be daunting enough if the social order was in good shape -- but it is not. Our civilization cannot be saved, not in its present form, not with the load of degenerates swamping the lifeboats.

For close to two years now, I have urged the Resistance and Patriotic elements to form survival cells of close friends and family. I continue to make that rational plea of sanity. For those who do not believe it is bad as I say, I offer the below issue of easily verifiable material for them to peruse and to see for themselves. The policies which should be set by all Resistance cells are those common-sense solutions which will lead to: (1) Survival and (2) Freedom. Survival comes first because you cannot enjoy your Freedom unless you are alive to enjoy it. So when biological warfare comes, I urge you to be out of the cities and in a place of isolation from a diseased and dying mass humanity. That you have enough food, water, and shelter in an isolated location. That you have enough moral strength to protect your own from the dying clinch of the unprepared who would take from you your self-prepared means for survival. This might even mean that you might go so far in your own protection as to consider fighting fire with fire.

Every man to his tent, O Israel! We will meet, in our separate tribes before the ark of the covenant when this is all over to discuss the basis for a voluntary confederation of men of good will for the purposes of justice.

--Editor Martin Lindstedt




Military Grade Anthrax & Its Usages

Someone wrote:

>Does anyone have a reference defining "military-grade anthrax"?
>Nothing showed up in an Altavista Web search.
>Could the newspapers be referring to weaponized anthrax?


   In the sorting of electronic components, such as diodes and 
resistors, the gold band after the first three is to denote a 
militiary specification, such as within 5 percent, as opposed to the 
silver band, which is  commercial grade and thus within 10% 

   In the case of biological agents, I would say that military-grade 
anthrax is a strain which has a pedigree, having been cultivated and 
specifically bred for a military application, as opposed to 'natural' 
strains which can be found in the soil where domestic animals died of 
anthrax, and the bacilli had opportunity to strengthen their cell walls 
and hibernate into spore form.  Supposedly, Harris took a probe and got 
anthrax spores by such a method.  These spores can be found anywhere in 
places like South Dakota or Texas which were known as 'anthrax 
districts.'  In fact, in a Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette of 
last year, I reprinted a story from the Souix Falls Argus-Leader about 
an anthrax outbreak around Mitchell, South Dakota, which had killed two 
cattle herds as a result of the unusually moist conditions of last year. 
[Correction: It was in an e-mail posting, which I think was posted to 
a listserver.  Last July the wires were burning over a supposed biowar 
which didn't happen.]


   It would seem reasonable that a military grade anthrax would be bred 
and tested to ensure lethality much in the same way Herefords are bred 
for special characteristics and the way nuclear warheads have been tested 
to ensure a maximum bang for a given amount of plutonium.

   You see, biological warfare is the wave of the future because it is 
cheap, easily available to anyone who really wants to develop such 
weapons, and its defense is created as a useful byproduct adjunct to 
developing such offensive weapons.  In fact, if you wish to develop a 
vaccine to the military grade anthrax, you must culture the strain to 
which you wish to create those antibiodies (or antibiotics).

    Remember, anthrax is a naturally occurring bacillus which has been 
used as the template for almost all biological warfare experiments. 
It is the original stock, like the wolf is for everything from wolfhounds 
to little Mexican hairless dogs whose name I can't spell.
   So one gets some anthrax spores from natural sources.  From that, 
one cultures the spores, then exposes that culture to antibiotics.  The 
antibiotics will kill most of the anthrax culture, but what survives is 
now antibiotic resistant, then immune to that particular antibiotic. 
(For example, there are some strains of tuberculosis bacilli which 
prefer to eat streptomycin FIRST, before feeding upon the normal 
culture medium.) What anthrax strains die off, are not destroyed, 
are used for the development of a vaccine to be used for inoculation 
before the live antibiotic-resistant anthrax strain faces the next 
hurtle of a new test with a more potent antibiotic.

   Eventually, given a few weeks, months, years, the last antibiotic 
left, such as vancomycin, is breached in its effectiveness as 
prophylactic against a biological warfare agent.  However, at the 
same time, the vaccine for this superior anthrax strain has been 
developed as a defense in tandem with a military offense.  Thus the 
developer of the offensive biological agent has the advantage of 
creating its defense, and thus can wage offensive biological warfare 
at will upon defenseless populations.  This is the logic behind the 
military uses of biological warfare, and would be what I would call 
'military-grade' anthrax.  It would be an anthrax with a pedigree, 
specifically bred to overcome civilian sector commercial antibiotics 
(which due to their overuse by agribusiness are increasingly worthless 
in combatting native bacilli such as streptococcus) and to which there 
is a vaccine available for injection by those chosen to survive.
   When one includes gene-splicing technology available for useage by 
the regime, all manner of exotic baccilli can be created, such as an 
artificial strep-anthrax-plague bacilli, which could be used as a 
doomsday device or for further blackmail.  Of course, I would call 
such an artificial organism 'super-military-grade anthrax derivative,'
but any way you sliced it, it still would be guaranteed death in a 

  When one realizes that our own criminal regime has been experimenting 
with such pathogens since before WWII, and has both the criminal intent 
to make such weapons and the will to use them, one should be far more 
scared of of 'our' gubbnmint's military-grade anthrax, as it has had 
a longer headstart than anything which has been bred by the Iraqis who 
have probably only been at it for 15 years, or a Larry Wayne Harris 
special, which in terms of effectiveness is but the crude derivation 
of natural anthrax.

   In any case given the immorality and stupidity of the current 
idiotic criminal regime, it is indeed but a matter of time before 
(1) They start a war with some state or group with the willingness 
to use biological warfare or (2) They pull an OKC and poison-death 
some mid-range city and blame it on the militia or 'patriots' or 
Iraqis or whomever else is the enemy of the criminal regime that 
season.  In any case, the target will likely be some major political 
of economic center such as a big city.  Washington or New York in the 
case of aggrieved parties from #1; Baton Rouge or Houston or Tulsa 
in the case of the criminal regime wanting to spread panic and 
to protect itself from internal disruption by totalitarian imposition 
in scenario #2.

   Of course the efforts of a dying criminal regime to maintain 
power through a policy of 'limited' biological warfare will backfire.  
Biological warfare is here to stay, and it simply cannot be protected 
against given the current state of scientific knowledge, the numbers 
of aggrieved parties wishing for revenge for past injustices, and 
the vulnerabilities inherent in having masses of low-quality humanity 
crowded together in megalopolises and the fact that due to the overuse 
of antibiotics by agribusiness that there is no pool of people with 
natural immunity to the actions of biological warfare.  The era of 
artificial immunity is drawing to a close with vancomycin-resistant 
bacteria signalling an end to the past 50-year over-exploitation of 
earth-based anti-bacilli of the streptomycin family.

   The only defense against biowar is to enforce a strict isolation 
in favor of one's self and family by eliminating all sources of 
infection and having the resources to live in isolation until the 
biowar has run its course.  In other words, this entails living in a 
small town or rural area, being willing to shoot to kill anyone coming 
within an infection zone by straying off public thoroughfares, and 
having enough food and other supplies to stay put until the pandemic 
is over.  Since antibiotics will be useless and it is foolish to bet 
that you are the one person in 100 with a nautural genetic immunity to 
whatever pathogen is used, such a policy of defense from contagion 
is the only one possible.


   The Resistance Action Force cells out there must consider 
the discreet development of biological agents for the following 
    (1) Every totalitarian regime out there has developed or is 
     developing biowar agents for the overt purpose of Mutual 
     Assured Destruction and the covert purpose of having a 
     first-strike capability in order to advance their criminal 
     activities against perceived enemies, foreign and domestic. 
     Since by their criminal activities these regimes and their 
     culpable citizenry have forfeited their right to live, the 
     usage of biological weaponry for past and continuing injustices 
     against them is not an immoral act.
    (2)  Biological warfare is cheap, effective, easy, and undetectable. 
     There is no way it can be guarded against.  Placing an airtight 
     cordon around a major city 24 hours per day for years on end is 
     impossible, given the need for its resupply with food and 
     other essentials of life.  Driving a car on the interstate beltway 
     around every major city in Amerika with a fake tailpipe pumping 
     anthrax spores upwind is a piece of cake given a suicide driver or 
     someone properly vaccinated against the pathogen.
    (3) Biological warfare is such that the only defense other than 
    quarantine is to be the only one holding the vaccine to the pathogen 
    unleashed.  This vaccine can be administered to one's allies and 
    denied to the victims unless they acceed to one's will. Thus a 
    tactical and strategic necessity of biowar is to ALWAYS be the 
    one engaged in a first strike.
    (4) Biological warfare always favors the aggrieved who have far 
    less to lose.  While no person has more than one life, taking 
    down a criminal regime and its human herd animals who allowed it 
    to flourish wallowing in injustice can be said to be an effective 
    revenge, and thus a life effectively spent.  In any case, such 
    revenge being taken is but a matter of time given that the 
    current criminal regime is a never-ending fountain of injustice 
    generating masses of the aggrieved.  
    (5) Since a large portion of Resistance Action Forces are of 
    Christian Identity and/or White Nationalist persuasion and live 
    in the rural areas most defensible to biowar, and the favored 
    minorities of the criminal regime and the regime criminals 
    themselves live in the urban and suburban areas most susceptable 
    to biowar attack, it would be foolish not to use a weapon which 
    favors our side.  Logic dictates that in the absence of any true 
    faith and allegiance between opposing sides that tactical and 
    strategic advantages will be pursued relentlessly in the interests 
    of winning the coming biowar.  All things considered, it is far 
    safer to unleash biowar rather than have it unleased against your 
        Larry Wayne Harris does indeed come off as a psychotic on the 
    TV tube such as occurred on Diane Sawyer's ABC program on Feb. 25, 
    1998; however his snigger concerning the usage of biowar tactics 
    by unknown Resistance cells reflects realities.  Unknown cells 
    using crudely bred anthrax spores are indeed invincible, and Mr. 
    Harris, be he psycho or unwilling FiBbIe stooge, has accurately 
    glimpsed the future.  Mr. Harris may not be the George Washington 
    of the biowar revolution, but he is intelligent enough to be a 
    prophet glimpsing the reality of the times to come.

   Morality has absolutely nothing to do with the deployment of 
biological weaponry.  The time for morality was back before the 
current immorality made civil warfare inevitable.  
   Anyone in the Resistance movement who cannot take the above 
realities to heart should waste his time in church praying for peace 
between men of ill will.  The Resistance needs to develop some of 
this weaponry in order to deal with the current ruling criminal 
regime and also to deal with potential invasion when civil- and 
bio-warfare has decimated the vast majority of Amerika.  I would 
urge anyone who loves his own to keep in mind the above realities 
of offensive biological warfare or at the very least the limited 
pitiful and beleagured defense against it .

--Martin Lindstedt

P.S.  I am not an expert in this field.  However, confirmation of the 
facts cited above can be discerned by reading some general information 
concerning biology in a high-skrule textbook, an adequate encyclopedia 
(I have Compton's on CD-ROM), and a few general non-fiction books on 
the subject such as 1990's "The Coming Plague."  Even fiction such as 
Stephen King's "The Stand", Frank Herbert's "The White Plague" or 
especially Michael Crichton's "The Lost World" can be informative. -M.L.



Back to the Bay of Camels


Date:  Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:48:37 -0500
From: MID-EAST REALITIES http://WWW.MiddleEast.Org.

         M  I  D  -  E  A  S  T      R  E  A  L  I  T  I  E  S
                          (c) Copyright 1998
    MER may be freely distributed by email and on the Internet so 
       long as there is no editing of any kind.  For any print 
           publication, permission in writing is required.   
    MER@MiddleEast.Org / Fax: 202 362-6965 / Phone: 202 362-5266



Evil Empire Has Internal Diagogue Regarding Its Eventual Destruction


FOREIGN AFFAIRS -January/February 1998

AN AMERICAN CITY  --  The New Threat of Mass Destruction

Richard K. Betts


DURING THE Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were the centerpiece 
of foreign policy.  Nuclear arms hovered in the background of every 
major issue in East-West competition and alliance relations.  The 
highest priorities of U.S. policy could almost all be linked in some 
way to the danger of World War III and the fear of millions of 
casualties in the American homeland.

Since the Cold War, other matters have displaced strategic concerns 
on the foreign policy agenda, and that agenda itself is now barely 
on the public's radar screen.  Apart from defense policy professionals, 
few Americans still lose sleep over weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  
After all, what do normal people feel is the main relief provided by 
the end of the Cold War?  It is that the danger of nuclear war is off 
their backs.

Yet today WMD present more and different things to worry about than 
during the Cold War.  For one, nuclear arms are no longer the only 
concern, as chemical and biological weapons have come to the fore.  
For another, there is less danger of complete annihilation, but more 
danger of mass destruction.  Since the Cold War is over and American 
and Russian nuclear inventories are much smaller, there is less chance 
of an apocalyptic exchange of many thousands of weapons.  But the 
probability that some smaller number of WMD will be used is growing.  
Many of the standard strategies and ideas for coping with WMD threats 
are no longer as relevant as they were when Moscow was the main 
adversary.  But new thinking has not yet congealed in as clear a form 
as the Cold War concepts of nuclear deterrence theory.

The new dangers have not been ignored inside the Beltway.
"Counterproliferation" has become a cottage industry in the Pentagon 
and the intelligence community, and many worthwhile initiatives to 
cope with threats are under way.  Some of the most important 
implications of the new era, however, have not yet registered on the 
public agenda.  This in turn limits the inclination of politicians 
to push some appropriate programs.  Even the defense establishment 
has directed its attention toward countering threats WMD pose to 
U.S. military forces op, abroad rather than to the more worrisome 
danger that mass destruction will occur in the United States,
killing large numbers of civilians.

The points to keep in mind about the new world of mass destruction 
are the following.  First, the roles such weapons play in 
international conflict are changing.  They no longer represent the 
technological frontier of warfare.  Increasingly, they will be weapons 
of the weak-states or groups that militarily are at best second-class.  
The importance of the different types among them has also shifted.  
Biological weapons should now be the most serious concern, with 
nuclear weapons second and chemicals a distant third. 

Second, the mainstays of Cold War security policy-deterrence and 
arms control-are not what they used to be.  Some new threats may not 
be deferrable, and the role of arms control in dealing with WMD has 
been marginalized.  In a few instances, continuing devotion to 
deterrence and arms control may have side effects that offset the 

Third, some of the responses most likely to cope with the threats 
in novel ways will not find a warm welcome.  The response that should 
now be the highest priority is one long ignored, opposed, or 
ridiculed: a serious civil defense program to blunt the effects of 
if they are unleashed within the United States. Some of the most 
effective measures to prevent attacks within the United States may 
also challenge Traditional civil liberties if pursued to the maximum.  
And the most troubling conclusion for foreign policy as a whole is 
that reducing the odds of attacks in the United States might require 
pulling back from involvement in some foreign conflicts.  American 
activism to guarantee international stability is, paradoxically,
the prime source of American vulnerability.

This was partly true in the Cold War, when the main danger that 
nuclear weapons might detonate on U.S. soil sprang from strategic 
engagement in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East to deter attacks on 
U.S. allies.  But engagement then assumed a direct link between 
regional stability and U.S. survival.  The connection is less evident 
today, when there is no globally threatening superpower or 
transnational ideology to be contained -- only an array of serious but 
entirely local disruptions.  Today, as the only nation acting to 
police areas outside its own region, the United States makes itself 
a target for states or groups whose aspirations are frustrated by
U.S. power.


The primary risk is that enemies might trigger catastrophes in 
American cities.

WHEN NUCLEAR weapons were born, they represented the most advanced 
military applications of science, technology, and engineering.  None 
but the great powers could hope to obtain them.  By now, however, 
nuclear arms have been around for more than half a century, and 
chemical and biological weapons even longer.  They are not just 
getting old.  In the strategic terms most relevant to American 
security, they have become primitive.  Once the military cutting edge 
of the strong, they have become the only hope for so-called rogue 
states or terrorists who want to contest American power.  Why?  
Because the United States has developed overwhelming superiority in
conventional military force something it never thought it had against 
the Soviet Union.

The Persian Gulf War of 1991 demonstrated the American advantage in 
a manner that stunned many abroad.  Although the U.S. defense budget 
has plunged, other countries are not closing the gap.  U.S. military 
spending remains more than triple that of any potentially hostile 
power and higher than the combined defense budgets of Russia, China, 
Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba.

More to the point, there is no evidence that those countries' level 
of military professionalism is rising at a rate that would make them
competitive even if they were to spend far more on their forces.  
Rolling along in what some see as a revolution in military affairs, 
American forces continue to make unmatched use of state-of-the-art 
weapons, surveillance and information systems, and the organizational 
and doctrinal flexibility for managing the integration of these 
complex innovations into "systems of systems" that is the key to 
modern military effectiveness.  More than ever in military history, 
brains are brawn.  Even if hostile countries somehow catch up in an 
arms race, their military organizations and cultures are unlikely to 
catch up in the competence race for management, technology
assimilation, and combat command skills.

If it is infeasible for hostile states to counter the United States 
in conventional combat, in American cities, it is even more daunting 
for smaller groups such as terrorists.  If the United States is lucky, 
the various violent groups with grievances against the American 
government and society will continue to think up schemes using 
conventional explosives.  Few terrorist groups have shown an interest 
in inflicting true mass destruction.  Bombings or hostage seizures 
have generally threatened no more than a few hundred lives.  Let us 
hope that this limitation has been due to a powerful underlying reason, 
rather than a simple lack of capability, and that the few exceptions 
do not become more typical.

There is no sure reason to bet on such restraint.  Indeed, some have 
tried to use WMD, only to see them fizzle.  The Japanese Aum Shinrikyo 
cult released sarin nerve gas in Tokyo in 1995 but killed only a few 
people, and some analysts believe that those who attacked the World 
Trade Center in 1993 laced their bomb with cyanide, which burned up 
in the explosion (this was not confirmed, but a large amount of 
cyanide was found in the perpetrators' possession).  Eventually such 
a group will prove less incompetent.  If terrorists decide that they 
want to stun American policymakers by inflicting enormous damage, 
WMD become more attractive at the same time that they are becoming 
more accessible.

Finally, unchallenged military superiority has shifted the attention 
of the U.S. military establishment away from WMD.  During the Cold 
War, nuclear weapons were the bedrock of American war capabilities.  
They were the linchpin of defense debate, procurement programs, and 
arms control because the United States faced another superpower --one 
that conventional wisdom feared could best it in conventional warfare.  
Today, no one cares about the MX missile or B-1 bomber, and hardly 
anyone really cares about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  In a 
manner that could only have seemed ludicrous during the Cold War, 
proponents now rationalize the $2 billion B-2 as a weapon for 
conventional war.  Hardly anyone in the Pentagon is still interested 
in how the United States could use WMD for its own strategic purposes.

What military planners are interested in is how to keep adversaries 
from using WMD as an "asymmetric" means to counter U.S. conventional 
power, and how to protect U.S. ground and naval forces abroad from 
WMD attacks.  This concern is all well and good, but it abets a drift 
of attention away from the main danger.  The primary risk is not that 
enemies might lob some nuclear or chemical weapons at U.S. armored 
battalions or ships, awful as that would be.  Rather, it is that they 
might attempt to punish the United States by triggering American 


UNTIL the past decade, the issue was nuclear arms, period.  Chemical
weapons received some attention from specialists, but never made the
priority list of presidents and cabinets.  Biological weapons were 
almost forgotten after they were banned by the 1972 Biological 
Weapons Convention.  Chemical and biological arms have received more 
attention in the 1990's.  The issues posed by the trio lumped under 
the umbrella of mass destruction differ, however.  Most significantly, 
biological weapons have received less attention than the others but 
probably represent the greatest danger.

Chemical weapons have been noticed more in the past decade, especially
since they were used by Iraq against Iranian troops in the 1980-88
Iran-lraq War and against Kurdish civilians in 1988.  Chemicals are 
far more widely available than nuclear weapons because the technology 
required to produce them is far simpler, and large numbers of countries 
have undertaken chemical weapons programs.  But chemical weapons are 
not really in the same class as other weapons of mass destruction, in 
the sense of ability to inflict a huge number of civilian casualties 
in a single strike.
 For the tens of thousands of fatalities as in, say, the biggest 
strategic bombing raids of World War 11, it would be very difficult 
logistically and operationally to deliver chemical weapons in 
necessary quantities over wide areas.

Nevertheless, much attention and effort have been lavished on a 
campaign to eradicate chemical weapons.  This may be a good thing, 
but the side effects are not entirely benign.  For one, banning 
chemicals means that for deterrence, nuclear weapons become even more 
important than they used to be.  That is because a treaty cannot 
assuredly prevent hostile nations from deploying chemical weapons, 
while the United States has forsworn the option to retaliate in kind.

In the past, the United States had a no-first-use policy for chemical
weapons but reserved the right to strike back with them if an enemy 
used them first.  The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which 
entered into force last April, requires the United States to destroy 
its stockpile, thus ending this option.  The United States did the 
same with biological arms long ago, during the Nixon administration.  
Eliminating its own chemical and biological weapons practically 
precludes a no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons, since they 
become the only WMD available for retaliation.  

Would the United States follow through and use nuclear weapons 
against a country or group that had killed several thousand Americans 
with deadly chemicals?  It is hard to imagine breaking the post-
Nagasaki taboo in that situation.  But schemes for conventional 
military retaliation would not suffice without detracting from the 
force of American deterrent threats.  There would be a risk for the 
United States in setting a precedent that someone could use WMD 
against Americans without suffering similar destruction in return.  
Limiting the range of deterrent alternatives available to U.S. 
strategy will not necessarily cause deterrence to fail, but it will 
certainly not strengthen it.

The ostensible benefit of the CWC is that it will make chemical 
arms harder to acquire and every bit as illegal and stigmatized as 
biological weapons have been for a quarter-century.  If it has that 
benefit, what effect will the ban have on the choices of countries or 
groups who want some kind of WMD in any case, whether for purposes of 
deterrence, aggression, or revenge?  At the margin, the ban will 
reduce the disincentives to acquiring biological weapons, since they 
will be no less illegal, no harder to obtain or conceal, and far more 
damaging than chemical weapons.  If major reductions in the chemical 
threat produce even minor increases in the biological threat, it will 
be a bad trade.

One simple fact should worry Americans more about biological than 
about nuclear or chemical arms: unlike either of the other two, 
nuclear weapons combine maximum destructiveness and easy use, have 
great killing capacity but are hard to get; chemical weapons are easy 
to get but lack such killing capacity; biological agents have both 
qualities.  A 1993 study by the Office of Technology assessment 
concluded that a single airplane delivering 100 kilograms of anthrax 
spores -- a dormant phase of a bacillus that multiplies rapidly in 
the body, producing toxins and rapid hemorrhaging -- by aerosol on a 
clear, calm night over the Washington, D.C., area could kill between 
one million and three million people, 300 times as many fatalities
as if the plane had delivered sarin gas in amounts ten times larger.

Like chemical weapons but unlike nuclear weapons, biologicals are
relatively easy to make.  Innovations in biotechnology have obviated 
many of the old problems in handling and preserving biological agents, 
and many have been freely available for scientific research.  Nuclear 
weapons are not likely to be the WMD of choice for non-state terrorist 
groups.  They require huge investments and targetable infrastructure, 
and are subject to credible threats by the United States.   An 
aggrieved group that decides it wants to kill huge numbers of 
Americans will find the mission easier to accomplish with anthrax 
than with a nuclear explosion.

Inside the Pentagon, concern about biological weapons has picked up
tremendously in the past couple of years, but there is little serious
attention to the problem elsewhere.  This could be a good thing if 
nothing much can be done, since publicity might only give enemies 
ideas.  But it is a bad thing if it impedes efforts to take steps 
-- such as civil defense -- that could blunt nuclear, chemical, or 
biological attacks.


Deterrence requires knowledge of who has launched an attack.

AN OLD vocabulary still dominates policy discussion Of WMD.  Rhetoric 
in the defense establishment falls back on the all-purpose strategic 
buzzword of the Cold War: deterrence.  But deterrence now covers 
fewer of the threats the United States faces than it did during the 
Cold War.

The logic of deterrence is clearest when the issue is preventing 
unprovoked and unambiguous aggression, when the aggressor recognizes 
that it is the aggressor rather than the defender.  Deterrence is 
less reliable when both sides in a conflict see each other as the 
aggressor.  When the United States intervenes in messy Third World 
conflicts, the latter is often true.  In such cases, the side that 
the United States wants to deter may see itself as trying to deter 
the United States.  Such situations are ripe for miscalculation.

For the country that used to be the object of U.S. deterrence 
Russia -- the strategic burden has been reversed.  Based on 
assumptions of Soviet conventional military superiority, U.S. 
strategy  used to rely on the threat to escalate -- to be the first 
to use nuclear weapons during a way to deter attack by Soviet 
armored divisions.  Today the tables have turned.  There is no Warsaw 
Pact, Russia has half or less of the military potential of the Soviet 
Union, and its current conventional forces are in disarray, while
NATO is expanding eastward.  It is now Moscow that has the incentive 
to compensate for conventional weakness by placing heavier reliance 
on nuclear capabilities.  The Russians adopted a nuclear no-first-use 
policy in the early 1980s, but renounced it after their precipitous 
post-Cold War decline.

Today Russia needs to be reassured, not deterred.  The main danger 
from Russian WMD is leakage from vast stockpiles to anti-American 
groups elsewhere -- the "loose nukes" problem.  So long as the United 
States has no intention of attacking the Russians, their greater 
reliance on nuclear forces is not a problem.  If the United States 
has an interest in reducing nuclear stockpiles, however, it is.

The traditional American approach-thinking in terms of its own 
deterrence strategies -- provides no guidance.  Indeed, noises some 
Americans still make about deterring the Russians compound the 
problem by reinforcing Moscow's alarm.

Similarly, U.S. conventional military superiority gives China an 
incentive to consider more reliance on an escalation strategy.  
The Chinese have a long-standing no-first-use policy but adopted it 
when their strategic doctrine was that of "People's war," which relied 
on mass mobilization and low-tech weaponry.  Faith in that doctrine 
was severely shaken by the American performance in the Persian Gulf 
War.  Again, the United States might assume that there is no problem 
as long as Beijing only wants to deter and the United States does not 
want to attack.  But how do these assumptions relate to the prospect 
of a war over Taiwan?  That is a conflict that no one wants but that 
can hardly be ruled out in light of evolving tensions.  If the United 
States decides openly to deter Beijing from attacking Taiwan, the 
old lore from the Cold War may be relevant.  But if Washington 
continues to leave policy ambiguous, who will know who is deterring 
whom?  Ambiguity is a recipe for confusion and miscalculation in a 
time of crisis.  For all the upsurge of attention in the national
security establishment to the prospect of conflict with China, there 
has been remarkably little discussion of the role of nuclear weapons 
in a Sino-American collision.

The main problem for deterrence, however, is that it still relies on 
the corpus of theory that undergirded Cold War policy, dominated by 
reliance on the threat of second-strike retaliation.  But retaliation 
requires knowledge of who has launched an attack and the address at 
which they reside.  These requirements are not a problem when the 
threat comes from a government, but they are if the enemy is anonymous.  
Today some groups may wish to punish the United States without taking 
credit for the action -- a mass killing equivalent to the 1988 bombing 
of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.  Moreover, the options 
the defense establishment favors have shifted over entirely from 
deterrence to preemption.  The majority of those who dealt with 
nuclear weapons policy during the Cold War adamantly opposed 
developing first-strike options.  Today, scarcely anyone looks to that 
old logic when thinking about rogues or terrorists, and most hope to 
be able to mount a disarming action against any group with WMD.

Finally, eliminating chemical weapons trims some options for 
deterrence.  Arms control restrictions on the instruments that can be 
used for deterrent threats are not necessarily the wrong policy, but 
they do work against maximizing deterrence.  Overall, however, the 
problem with arms control is not that it does too much but that it 
now does relatively little.

From the Limited Test Ban negotiations in the 1960s through the 
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces negotiations in the 1970s and 1980s, 
arms control treaties were central to managing WMD threats.  Debates 
about whether particular agreements with Moscow were in the United 
States' interest were bitter because everyone believed that the 
results mattered.  Today there is no consensus that treaties 
regulating armaments matter much.  Among national security experts, 
the corps that pays close attention to START and Conventional Forces 
in Europe negotiations has shrunk.  With the exception of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention, efforts to control WMD by treaty have 
become small potatoes.  The biggest recent news in arms control
has not been any negotiation to regulate WMD, but a campaign to ban 
land mines.

The United States' Cold War partner in arms control, Russia, has 
disarmed a great deal voluntarily.  But despite standard rhetoric, 
the United States has not placed a high priority on convincing 
Moscow to divest itself of more of its nuclear weapons; the Clinton 
administration has chosen to promote NATO expansion, which pushes 
the Russians in the opposite direction.

The 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty remains a hallowed 
institution, but it has nowhere new to go.  It will not convert the 
problem countries that want to obtain WMD -- unless, like Iraq and 
North Korea in the 1980s, they sign and accept the legal obligation 
and then simply cheat.  The NPT regime will continue to impede access 
to fissile materials on the open market, but it will not do so in 
novel or more effective ways.  And it does not address the problem 
of Russian "loose nukes" any better than the Russian and American 
governments do on their own.


Stockpiling gas masks and antibiotics could reduce the death toll.

DESPITE ALL the new limitations, deterrence remains an important 
aspect of strategy.  There is not much the United States needs to do 
to keep up its deterrence capability, however, given the thousands 
of nuclear weapons and the conventional military superiority it has.  
Where capabilities are grossly underdeveloped, however, is the area 
of responses for coping should deterrence fail.

Enthusiasts for defensive capability, mostly proponents of the 
Strategic Defense Initiative from the Reagan years, remain fixated on 
the least relevant form of it: high-tech active defenses to intercept 
ballistic missiles.  There is still scant interest in what should now 
be the first priority: civil defense preparations to cope with uses 
of WMD within the United States.  Active defenses" against missiles 
would be expensive investments that might or might not work against 
a threat the United States probably will not face for years, but 
would do nothing against the threat it already faces.  Civil defense 
measures are extremely cheap and could prove far more effective than 
they would have against a large-scale Soviet attack.

During the Cold War, debate about antimissile defense concerned 
whether it was technologically feasible or cost-effective and whether 
it would threaten the Soviets and ignite a spiraling arms race 
between offensive and defensive weapons.  One need not refight the 
battles over SDI to see that the relevance to current WMD threats 
is tenuous.  Iraq, Iran, or North Korea will not be able to deploy 
intercontinental missiles for years.  Nor, if they are strategically 
cunning, should they want to.  For the limited number of nuclear 
warheads these countries are likely to have, and especially for 
biological weapons, other means of delivery are more easily available.  
Alternatives to ballistic missiles include aircraft, ship-launched 
cruise missiles, and unconventional means, such as smuggling,
at which the intelligence agencies of these countries have excelled.
Non-state perpetrators like those who bombed the World Trade Center 
will choose clandestine means of necessity.

A ballistic missile defense system, whether it costs more or less 
than the $60 billion the Congressional Budget Office recently 
estimated would be required for one limited option, will not counter 
these modes of attack.  Indeed, if a larger part of the worry about 
WMD these days is about their use by terrorist states or groups, the 
odds are higher that sometime, somewhere in the country, some of 
these weapons will go off, despite the best efforts to stop them.  
If that happens, the United States should have in place whatever 
measures can mitigate the consequences.

By the later phases of the Cold War it was hard to get people 
interested in civil defense against an all-out Soviet attack that 
could detonate thousands of high-yield nuclear weapons in U.S. 
population centers.  To many, the lives that would have been saved 
seemed less salient than the many millions that would still have 
been lost.  It should be easier to see the value of civil defense, 
however, in the context of more limited attacks, perhaps with only 
a few low-yield weapons.  A host of minor measures can increase 
protection or recovery from biological, nuclear, or chemical effects.  
Examples are stockpiling or distribution of protective masks; 
equipment and training for decontamination; standby Programs for 
mass vaccinations and emergency treatment with antibiotics; wider 
and deeper planning of emergency response procedures; and public 
education about hasty sheltering and emergency actions to reduce 
individual vulnerability.

Such programs would not make absorbing a WMD attack tolerable.  
But inadequacy is no excuse for neglecting actions that could reduce 
death and suffering, even if the difference in casualties is small.  
Civil defenses are especially worthwhile considering that they are 
extraordinarily cheap compared with regular military programs or 
active defense systems.  Yet until recently, only half a billion 
dollars -- less than two tenths of one percent of the defense budget 
and less than $2 a head for every American -- went to chemical and 
biological defense, while nearly $4 billion was spent annually on 
ballistic missile defense.  Why haven't policymakers attended to 
first things first-cheap programs that can cushion the effects
of a disaster-before undertaking expensive programs that, provide 
no assurance they will be able to prevent it?

One problem is conceptual inertia.  The Cold War accustomed 
strategists to worrying about an enemy with thousands Of WMD, rather 
than foes with a handful. For decades the question of strategic 
defense was also posed as a debate between those who saw no 
alternative to relying on deterrence and those who hoped that an 
astrodome over the United States could replace deterrence with 
invulnerability.  None of these hoary fixations address the most 
probable WMD threats in the post-Cold War world.

Opposition to Cold War civil defense programs underlies 
psychological aversion to them now.  Opponents used to argue that 
civil defense was a dangerous illusion because it could do nothing 
significant to reduce the horror of an attack that would obliterate 
hundreds of cities, because it would promote a false sense of 
security, and because it could even be destabilizing and provoke 
attack in a crisis.  Whether or not such arguments were valid then, 
they are not now.  But both then and now, there has been a powerful 
reason that civil defense efforts have been unpopular: they alarm 
people.  They remind them that their vulnerability to mass destruction 
is not a bad dream, not something that strategic schemes for
deterrence, preemption, or interception are sure to solve.

Civil defense can limit damage but not minimize it.  For example, 
some opponents may be able to develop biological agents that 
circumvent available vaccines and antibiotics. (Those with marginal 
technical capabilities, however, might be stopped by blocking the 
easier options).  Which is worse-the limitations of defenses, or 
having to answer for failure to try. The moment that WMD are used 
somewhere in a manner that produces tens of thousands of fatalities, 
there will be hysterical outbursts of all sorts.  One of them will 
surely be, Why didn't the government prepare us for this?" It is not 
in the long-term interest of political leaders to indulge popular 
aversion.  If public resistance under current circumstances prevents 
widespread distribution, stockpiling, and instruction in the use of 
defensive equipment or medical services, the least that should be done
is to optimize plans and preparations to rapidly implement such 
activities when the first crisis ignites demand.

As threats of terrorism using WMD are taken more seriously, interest 
will grow in preemptive defense measures -- the most obvious of which 
is intensified intelligence collection.  Where this involves 
targeting groups within the United States that might seem to be 
potential breeding grounds for terrorist acts, (for example, supporters 
of Palestinian militants, home-grown militias or cults, or radicals 
with ties to Iran, Iraq, or Libya), controversies will arise over 
constitutional limits on invasion of privacy or search and seizure.  
So long as the WMD danger remains hypothetical, such controversies 
will not be easily resolved.  They have not come to the fore so far 
because U.S. law enforcement has been unbelievably lucky in 
apprehending terrorists.  The group arrested in 1993 for planning to 
bomb the Lincoln Tunnel happened to be infiltrated by an informer, and 
Timothy McVeigh happened to be picked up in 1995 for driving without 
a license plate.  Those who fear compromising civil liberties with
permissive standards for government snooping should consider what is 
likely to happen once such luck runs out and it proves impossible to 
identify perpetrators.  Suppose a secretive radical Islamic group 
launches a biological attack, kills 100,000 people, and announces that 
it will do the same thing again if its terms are not met. (The 
probability of such a scenario may not be high, but it can no longer 
be consigned to science fiction.) In that case, it is hardly 
unthinkable that a panicked legal system would roll over and treat 
Arab-Americans as it did the Japanese-Americans who were herded into 
concentration camps after Pearl Harbor.  Stretching limits domestic 
surveillance to reduce the chances of facing such choices could be the 
lesser evil.


No PR0GRAM s aimed at controlling adversaries' capabilities can 
eliminate the dangers.  One risk is that in the more fluid politics 
of the post-Cold War world, the United States could stumble into an 
unanticipated crisis with Russia or China.  There are no 
well-established rules of the game to brake a spiraling conflict over 
the Baltic states or Taiwan, as there were in the superpower 
competition after the Cuban missile crisis.  The second danger is 
that some angry group that blames the United States for its problems 
may decide to coerce Americans, or simply exact vengeance by infecting 
devastation on them where they live.  

If steps to deal with the problem in terms of capabilities are limited, 
can anything be done to address intentions -- the incentives of any 
foreign power or group to lash out at the United States?  There are 
few answers to this question that do not compromise the fundamental 
strategic activism and internationalist thrust of U.S. foreign policy 
over the past half-century.  That is because the best way to keep 
people from believing that the United States is responsible for their 
problems is to avoid involvement in their conflicts.

Ever since the Munich agreement and Pearl Harbor, with only a brief
interruption during the decade after the Tet offensive, there has 
been a consensus that if Americans did not draw their defense 
perimeter far forward and confront foreign troubles in their early 
stages, those troubles would come to them at home.  But because the 
United States is now the only superpower and weapons of mass 
destruction have become more accessible, American intervention in 
troubled areas is not so much a way to fend off such threats as it 
is what stirs them up.

Will U.S. involvement in unstable situations around the former 
U.S.S.R. head off conflict with Moscow or generate it?  Will making 
NATO bigger and moving it to Russia's doorstep deter Russian pressure 
on Ukraine and the Baltics or provoke it?  With Russia and China, 
there is less chance that either will set out to conquer Europe or 
Asia than that they will try to restore old sovereignties and security 
zones by reincorporating new states of the former Soviet Union or the 
province of Taiwan.  None of this means that NATO expansion or support 
for Taiwan's autonomy will cause nuclear war.  It does mean that to 
whatever extent American activism increases those countries' 
incentives to rely on WMD while intensifying political friction 
between them and Washington, it is counterproductive.

The other main danger is the ire of smaller states or religious and
cultural groups that see the United States as an evil force blocking 
their legitimate aspirations.  It is hardly likely that Middle 
Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of 
the World Trade Center if the United States had not been identified 
for so long as the mainstay of Israel, the shah of Iran, and 
conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on 
Islam.  Cold War triumph magnified the problem.  U.S. military and 
cultural hegemony -- the basic threats to radicals seeking to
challenge the status quo-are directly linked to the imputation of 
American responsibility for maintaining world order. Playing Globocop 
feeds the urge of aggrieved groups to strike back.

Is this a brief for isolationism?  No. It is too late to turn off 
foreign resentments by retreating, even if that were an acceptable 
course.  Alienated groups and governments would not stop blaming 
Washington for their problems.  In addition, there is more to 
foreign policy than dampening incentives to hurt the United States.  
It is not automatically sensible to stop pursuing other interests for 
the sake of uncertain reductions in a threat of uncertain probability.  
Security is not an of a piece, and survival is only part of security.

But it is no longer prudent to assume that important security 
interests complement each other as they did during the Cold War.  The 
interest at the very core -- protecting the American homeland from 
attack -- may now often be in conflict with security more broadly 
conceived and with the interests that mandate promoting American 
political values, economic interdependence, social Westernization, 
and stability in regions beyond Western Europe and the Americas. The 
United States should not give up all its broader political interests, 
but it should tread cautiously in areas -- especially the Middle East 
where broader interests grate against the core imperative of 
preventing mass destruction within America's borders.


RICHARD K. BETTS is Director of National Security Studies at the Council 
on Foreign Relations and Professor of Political Science and Director of 
the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.



Let Them Live In Fear

To: "BIOWAR-List" 
Subject: [BIOWAR] Denial keeps us from being paralyzed by fear
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 16:35:44 -0500


Denial keeps us from being paralyzed by fear

It was, as I recall, on the last Friday of the month that the air raid
sirens would sound. It was a high-pitched wail, rising and falling and
seeming to come from everywhere at once. That was our signal to stop 
our schoolwork and kneel beneath our desks, heads down, hands clasped 
behind our necks.

This was called a drop drill. Evidently someone in authority was of the
opinion that cowering beneath an inch of wood and shielding your head 
was enough to save you from the effects of a thermonuclear exchange. 
Your tax dollars at work.

I didn't think about it much when I was a child. It was just another 
piece of the school-day routine, like fire drills and pop quizzes. 
Wasn't until I got older that I began to reflect on the horror my 
elders had feared and the laughable inadequacy of their response.

Of course, what response would be equal to the threat of millions of 
people dead by nuclear fire?

When I reached an age to understand these things, there was born in me 
a fear so large I had to consign it to the furthest fringes of my mind, 
shrink it till it was just a ghost troubling the occasional sleepless 
dawn.  Nuclear exchange was a thought too awful for thinking, filled 
me with too palpable a sense of my own soft vulnerability.

Not unlike a threat of anthrax.

Does it reassure you that authorities have dropped federal charges 
against microbiologist and alleged white supremacist Larry Harris, that 
they've determined it wasn't anthrax he was caught with last week, but 
a harmless anthrax-based vaccine? Me, I'm not reassured at all. The 
threat alone was too chilling a reminder of how dangerous is the world, 
how easily we can die.

Anthrax is a deadly agent that kills in microscopic doses. Persons it
afflicts initially suffer flu-like symptoms. A few days later, they die.
I've heard little expert consensus on the probable death toll if, say, 
a vial of the stuff were released in a crowded subway or sprayed from a
low-flying plane. Suffice it to say that their most conservative 
estimate says the dead would number in the tens of thousands.

So I find myself doing something I haven't done since the Cold War days 
when every week seemed to bring a new reminder of nuclear Armageddon. 
Namely, living in denial. Whispering my mantra of sweet reassurance. 
Telling myself that the unthinkable can't happen because, after all, 
there are safeguards in place and crackerjack people on the lookout.

Don't tell me I'm fooling myself. I already know this. Heck, that's the
whole point. That's the only thing that gets me through the day.

I suspect I'm not alone in this, not the only one who shudders at the 
threat and then changes the subject -- as if ignoring it might make it 
go away.  Amazing that this impulse still survives. Even after the 
World Trade Center.  Even after Oklahoma City. Even now.

Some would-be terrorist gets caught before carrying out some scheme of 
mass destruction and we go on just as before, returning to normal 
concerns as if it were somehow divinely preordained that everything will 
turn out OK.  We are emotionally malleable, spiritually adaptable, 
believe what we must to keep moving forward. We never face the niggling 
little what-ifs that could stop us cold.

And yet ...

What if, one day, it doesn't work out OK? What if one day, it's never 
OK again?  What then?

I suppose the bureaucrats who had us kneeling under desks in 
anticipation of a nuclear exchange were only doing what comes naturally 
in the face of the unthinkable.  Exercising the illusion of control. 
Pretending to have it covered. Trying to contain a fear that seeps 
under consciousness like a slow-moving spill.

What else are you going to do? We only have the two choices.

We live in denial.

Or else, we live in fear. KNIGHT RIDDER

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

BIOWAR-L Biowar/Bioterrorism/Toxins Mailing List
To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to
with the following text: unsubscribe BIOWAR-L or subscribe BIOWAR-L.
Post to: ( Archive:
( BIOWAR Web site:
(  Wes Thomas (



We Educated Our Enemies to Destroy Us


                     FRONT PAGE STORY
                         From the
         HERALD SUN SUNDAY - Melbourne, Australia
                     February 15, 1998


                 ***** DR. RIHAB TAHA  *****
                 ***** DR. RIHAB TAHA  *****
                 ***** DR. RIHAB TAHA  *****

            --- Special Report by Ron Laytner ---

SHE is the mother of a baby daughter, but makes unspeakable potions to 
kill people by the tens of thousands.  She is the mousy British-trained
scientist who is now Saddam Hussein's heroine in the chemical weapons
laboratories of Iraq.

Meet the woman they call Dr. Germ --- mastermind of the Doomsday 
arsenal that contains enough chemicals and viruses to kill everyone 
on Earth twice over.

Dr. Rihab Taha, 42, has overseen the creation of 10 billion doses 
of the bugs responsible for anthrax, botulism, ebola, and bubonic 

If her deadly weapons were released on battlefields or against the 
world's major cities, she could go down in history as the world's 
deadliest woman.

Meanwhile, Pentagon chief General Henry Shelton revealed a plan to 
blast Iraq with cruise missiles and bombs.


SHE has been dubbed Dr. Germ --- the most dangerous woman to walk the
Earth, and already this British-trained scientist has created enough
biological weapons to kill everyone on EARTH twice over.

Yet, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, she is a heroine, who, only two weeks 
ago, was publicly applauded by the dictator at Baghdad's Military 
Industrial Commission as he handed her a glittering prize for her 
deadly work.

In a neat, blue suit and sober jewellery, Dr. Rihab Taha, 42 and at 
the centre of the growing Iraqi crisis, smiled her thanks before 
driving home to look after her baby daughter in a smart and very 
secure Baghdad townhouse.

For this mother, with mousy hair now flecked with grey, is the person 
who persuaded Saddam Hussein to launch his controversial germ warfare 
program back in the 1980s.

And it is her lethal handiwork, started on her return from the 
University of East Anglia, in the cathedral town of Norwich, England, 
in 1984, and kept secret by Saddam Hussein, that has sparked the latest 

In an extraordinary decade, Dr. Germ has overseen the creation of 10
billion killer doses of toxins, including botulinum, a vicious food
poisoning bug that provokes a swollen tongue, frothing mouth and 
dizziness before a victim's rapid death.  She is suspected of producing 
a host of lethal viruses and bacteria that are stockpiled secretly in 
Iraq in bunkers and factories known only to Saddam's henchmen.

Most incredibly, she has masterminded the testing of anthrax, which
dissolves the kidneys, liver, and lungs leading to death within two 
days, on rats, mice, dogs, sheep, and donkeys.  Almost certainly, 
humans too, say United Nations inspectors.

Videos seized by them two years ago showed the animals, often placed 
in sealed plastic boxes, writhing in agony as the biological agents 
took their toll.

Today it seems certain that under Dr. Germ's direction, research also 
was done into haemorrhagic conjunctivitis, which temporarily blinds 
and makes eyes bleed, plus another ghastly virus leading to lethal 
diarrhoea in children.  Dr. Germ became an expert on camel pox, which 
provokes bleeding skin lesions, and a rare African fever.

As the scale of Dr. Germ's foul deeds come to light, those who knew 
her in Norwich --- where for five years she studied plant toxins and 
would return from holidays in Iraq with gift-wrapped boxes of dates 
for fellow students --- have expressed surprise at the notorious rise 
of a "very ordinary" scientist and nondescript girl, who loved 
watching the BBC in her spare time.

"She talked about Saddam Hussein as though he was someone she admired,
almost on fatherly terms," admitted a student who befriended Dr. Germ 
at the time.

"But she was difficult to get to know.  She and two other Iraqi girls 
would keep up to date on the Iran-Iraqi conflict by staying glued to 
the TV."

Today her professors speculate that Dr. Rihab Taha may have been sent 
to the West specifically to gain expert knowledge on biological 
weaponry for the regime back home.  Or, they wonder, did her skills 
just fit neatly into an emerging master plan when she returned to her 
native Iraq?

"It's like your daughter has gone and done something dreadful.  
Finding out what Taha does now has been a great shock to me," says 
Dr. John Turner, the head of the East Anglia University's biology 
department and her teacher for four years.

"Of all the students I have had, Taha is the last person I would 
suspect of doing something like this.  She kept quiet and was in the 
background.  Although she was well liked, she was not a gifted 
student, but very hard-working.  I am flabbergasted."

Even the first UN inspector to meet Dr. Germ, though aware that she 
played a key role, was unprepared for the woman he faced; a woman 
so nervous that she even shyly sought his opinion of her work as a 

"She was an unassuming individual to look at her.  No one would 
suspect that she was the head fo the country's germ warfare program," 
admits Dr. David Huxsoll, who headed the initial UN weapon inspection 
team in 1991. (He was the former commander of the U.S. Army's Medical 
Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Dietrick Maryland.  After 
heading the UN inspection team in 1991, he returned in 1994.  He is 
now dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at Louisiana State 

UN inspectors have, at last, discovered the truth about the sinister 
work of Dr. Germ --- and other Iraqi scientists, many of whom were 
educated at British universities --- despite her own desperate 
attempts at a cover up.

After seven years of sleuthing, the believe Dr. Germ's Doomsday 
arsenal of biological weaponry may have been used on human guinea 

Recent Israeli intelligence reports point to such atrocities at 
Salman Park, a military complex 80km south of Baghdad.

According to Israeli military sources, it was here --- from safely 
behind a glass screen --- that Iraqi scientists watched as Iranian 
prisoners of war were strapped to beds in an underground room.  On 
the ceiling was a powerful spraygun aimed at the terrified men 

On occasions, the spraygun poured out anthrax bacteria which 
penetrates the skin and lungs, leaving the prisoners dying in agony 
from internal haemorrhaging.  At other times, it contained toxins 
for use in chemical weapons. Again, the victims faced a horrible 

In another test, at an open-air site near Iraq's border with Saudi 
Arabi, 12 Iranian prisoners were tied to posts while shells loaded 
with anthrax were blown up by remote control a few metres away.  
The heads of the doomed dozen were shielded to protect them from 
shrapnel so the power of the bacteria could be properly monitored.  
Each died from the disease a couple of days later.

It is the horrific possibility of experimentation on humans that is 
now being explored by the UN inspectors, who were turned away from 
the Abu Gharib jail, near Baghdad, when they tried to uncover evidence 
that prisoners had been removed for the obscene testing two years ago.

Raymond Zilimskas, a former germ warfare analyst at the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency in the US, met Dr. Germ and her sidekicks on 
two trips to Iraq.  He says her scientific and management prowess 
was obvious to him.  But, today, he wonders if Saddam Hussein is 
trying to hide the extent of this monster woman's work exactly 
because it involved experiments on humans.

"That's what everybody's asking," Zilimskas said recently.  "The
speculation is that in Iraq there probably has to be unsavory 
activities, including unethical experimentation.  The real mystery has 
to do with testing.  It is the records of this work that Iraq will 
go to any lengths to hide."

So, despite their undoubted skills, the inspectors -- men and women 
from 21 countries -- have a hard job.  As they search in river beds 
and tunnels for warheads fitted with deadly germs, in ministries for 
an odd file that might give them a clue, they concede that they are 
up against a determined madman in Saddam Hussein.

But they are secretly helped by Israel, which has a national interest 
in preventing Iraq keeping or acquiring weapons of mass destruction.  
In 1981, Israeli war planes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear rectors to 
prevent the country building a nuclear bomb.  During the Gulf War, 
Iraq, in response, aimed Scud missiles at Israel and its 
extraordinary 50 metre-long "supergun," a one-shot weapon designed 
to fire chemical or biological payloads, was aimed directly at Tel 

Today, Israeli agents pass information under cover to the UN, which 
is wary of publicity about the arrangement because of the Arab world's 
animosity to the Jewish state.  Israeli agents never enter the UN, 
but meeting are set up in safe houses and hotel rooms so vital 
intelligence can be passed over the help jam Saddam Hussein's war 

And, in Israel, thousands of citizens line up for biological gas 
masks, knowing that an attack on Iraq will bring Iraqi bio-missiles 
to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Since the inspection regime was set up by the UN only weeks after 
Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, a fantastic array of Saddam 
Hussein's instruments of mass destruction has been destroyed or 
removed, including an assembled supergun, 150 Scud missiles, 30 
chemical warheads and 690 tons of chemical weapons.  In fact, more 
Iraqi weaponry has been disarmed in this way that the US and its 
Allies managed to eliminate by bombing in the 1991 conflict.

Yet, despite successes, the UN believes many of the most dangerous 
weapons of all --- the biological ones --- are hidden by the Iraqis. 
At one stage, inspectors feared that sizeable quantities of anthrax 
were being driven around the country in refrigerated trucks by 
Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard so it could not be found.

Certainly, when Dr. Germ was first relentlessly questioned about her
research she denied everything, bursting into tears, throwing tantrums, 
and even storming out of the interview room.

A deliberate liar, she pretended that all biological agents and 
munitions had been destroyed in the months after the Gulf War.  Dr. 
Taha also kept secret the existence of a germ warfare factory at 
al_hakim, 130km west of Baghdad, where lethal research was carried 
out under her instructions.

At the heart of Iraq's biological warfare effort, code-named Project 
324 because work started at al_hakam on March 24, 1988, the factory 
produced gas gangrene, which makes the skin of a human melt and fall 
off.  It was from there, during the Gulf War, that Dr. Germ carried 
out Saddam Hussein's personal instructions to experiment on loading 
bombs and missile warheads with deadly toxins.

At the secret factory -- which escaped US and British aerial 
bombardment during Gulf War action, but has been since destroyed by 
the UN -- the tiny, but determined female scientist discovered that 
a single missile warhead filled with anthrax could annihilate 30,000 
or 40,000 people in 12 hours of hell.  A teacup of the toxin is 
enough to wipe out the inhabitants of a small town.

Yet, when Dr. Germ was grilled about the al-Hakam factory, she 
insisted it was making only chicken feed to help end the hunger of 
Iraq's people.  "Our country now needs fat chickens and lots of eggs, 
so we are trying to do just that," she claimed.  "This project is 
purely for civilian use."

That was, of course, a lie.  But her devious work, including a plan 
to wreak havoc in the West by developing an antibiotic-resistant 
chemical, earned Dr. Taha friends in high places.  On one notable 
occasion, as a UN inspector began to list the biological agents she 
had developed, he reported she started to cry hysterically.

Suddenly, General Amer Kashid, Iraqi official in charge of liaising 
with the UN inspections team --- and a mastermind of the attacks on 
Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf conflict --- stepped 
in.  He called the inspector a bad scientist for accusing Dr. Germ of 

Soon after, the inspectors discovered the general was in love with Dr. 
Taha and had sired her daughter.  He had quietly married her in 1994, 
despite still being married to another woman, the mother of his 
six-year-old child.

However, the real breakthrough came when Saddam Hussein's son-in-law,
General Hussein Kamal -- himself a super weapons expert -- defected 
from Iraq to Jordan in 1995 and told the world about Dr. Germ.  He 
said her charming ways and pleasant manner were nothing but a sham.

General Kamal's testimony about Taha and Iraq's bio-weapons 
preparations came to an end when he was personally convinced by 
Saddam Hussein to return to Iraq, where he was immediately killed.

But he gave the first open knowledge of Saddam's monstrous woman 
scientist who had worked on killer viruses and forms of germ 
warfare --- a woman who was completely unknown before.  This was the 
woman who had a child at home, but was preparing potions to kill other 
mothers' babies.

Faced with the damning new evidence, Dr. Taha confessed.  "She 
suddenly had no hesitation about presenting herself as the brains 
behind the biological weapon-building in Iraq," one UN weapons 
inspector commented.

"She is proud of her country and proud of her work.  I don't think 
she had a qualm in the world about her misdeeds."

Today, Dr. Rihab Taha must be high on the target list of the West's 
secret services.  Perhaps higher, even, than Saddam Hussein.  She 
also may be a war criminal for violating the international laws on 
germ warfare.

But in Iraq she is upheld as a shining example of womanhood by Saddam
Hussein, who gave her the prize for scientific achievement so very

"It was obviously for her work in biological weaponry," a UN scientist
observed the other day.  "Dr. Germ has never achieved anything else 
during the whole of her career to date.  But she may go down in history 
as the most deadly woman of all time."


See also:



Origins of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction


Subject: [BIOWAR] US helped Iraq develop bio, chemical arms-report

Fowarded as received..

06:22 PM ET 02/12/98

US helped Iraq develop bio, chemical arms-report

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States helped Iraq develop its chemical 
and biological weapons programs in the 1980s while Britain sold 
Baghdad the antidote to nerve gas as late as March 1992, Britain's 
Channel Four television news said Thursday.

The program said it had found U.S. intelligence documents which 
showed 14 consignments of biological materials were exported from 
the United States to Iraq between 1985 and 1989.

These included 19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of 
botulinum, the organism that causes botulism. The exports, backed by 
the State Department, were licensed by the Department of Commerce, 
it said.

The program said Iraq had bought other toxins from the United States 
while the atomic energy commission in Baghdad acquired human genetic 
material and E. coli bacteria for use as a culture medium.

No less than 29 batches of material were sent after Iraq had used 
gas in an attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing 
5,000 people, it said.

Stephen Bryen, a former senior Pentagon official in the 1980s, said 
he and a few colleagues had tried hard to stop the exports of 
sensitive materials.

`They just were stupid, utterly stupid, and the people who did it I 
don't think had even a slight grasp of what they were doing,'' he 
told Channel Four.

He said he had managed to stop a 1988 order from Iraq for 1.5 million 
doses of atropine, which is used to protect troops from nerve gas.

Channel Four news quoted from a classified U.S. Department of Defense
document which it said showed Iraq had bought pralidoxine -- an 
antidote to nerve gas -- from Britain in March 1992, after the Gulf 

``This (sale) took place, as I understand it, long before we came into
government,'' British Defense Secretary George Robertson told the 

"`We'll investigate it, but I understand it probably was exported on 
the grounds that it was medication and medications are allowable 
exports to Iraq today."

Channel Four also said it had uncovered U.S. intelligence documents 
which showed London and Washington knew as long ago as August 1990 of 
the existence of Agent 15, a deadly nerve gas.  Robertson, releasing 
what he said was new information about Iraq's 1991 weapon stocks, on 
Monday said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may have possessed large 
quantities of Agent 15.

`There may well have been some knowledge of the range of things Saddam 
might have had at that time but the concrete information has only 
gradually come forward (in) recent times,'' Robertson told Channel 


BIOWAR-L Biowar/Bioterrorism/Toxins Mailing List
To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to
with the following text: unsubscribe BIOWAR-L or subscribe BIOWAR-L.
Post to: ( Archive:
( BIOWAR Web site:
(  -Wes Thomas (



Fight One Dog, You Gotta Fight 'Em All


From U.S. News of Feb. 23, 1998,
WEB EXCLUSIVE - Moving Target Iraq has secretly built chemical weapons plants in Sudan, transferred nuclear materials to Algeria, and sent a dozen of its top scientists to develop a biological warfare complex in Libya. BY ALAN COOPERMAN U.S. airstrikes cannot eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction for the simple reason that Iraq has smuggled many of them to other Arab countries for safekeeping. That is the conclusion of a draft report by the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare which was obtained by U.S. News & World Report magazine. The report -- based on American, German, and Israeli intelligence -- says that Iraq has secretly built chemical weapons plants in Sudan, transferred nuclear materials to Algeria, and sent a dozen of its top scientists to develop a biological warfare complex in Libya. The Clinton administration has dispatched three aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and is now building international support for a military strike to punish Saddam Hussein for defying United Nations weapons inspectors. But "no bombing campaign against Iraq, and even an occupation of that country for that matter, is capable of destroying the hard core of Saddam Hussein's primary WMD [weapons of mass destruction] development and production programs,'' the congressional report states. "The reason is that under current conditions these programs are run outside of Iraq -- mainly in Sudan and Libya, as well as Algeria (storage of some hot nuclear stuff).'' The transfer of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology began even before the Gulf War. As Saddam Hussein realized that the coalition led by the United States was going to bomb his country in 1991, he hastily smuggled know-how, equipment, and key materials to his close allies. And the smuggling has continued right up to the present. In March/April 1991, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz got permission from Sudan's president, Umar al-Bashir, to move about 400 Scud missiles and chemical weapons to Sudan for "safekeeping.'' At the same time, Iraq smuggled nuclear materials, documents, and weapons parts -- including 27.5 pounds of highly-enriched uranium-235 -- to Sudan via Jordan using diplomatic mail privileges. For example, barrels of uranium were hidden in a truck marked "furniture'' that went from the Sudanese Embassy in Iraq to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in January 1992. Since Sudan has no nuclear facilities, most of the nuclear materials were later shipped to a Chinese-built research reactor in the Algerian town of Ain Oussera, where they are still being stored, according to the report. In 1995, Iraq and Sudan jointly built a plant to produce choking mustard gas near Wau in southwestern Sudan. The chemical weapons plant is located in a former fruit factory staffed by Iraqi technicians. The gas has been used at least twice by the Sudanese government against the rebel Sudanese People's Liberation Army in southern Sudan. In May 1996, the Iraqis and Sudanese tested chemical agents in the desert, and residents got sick when winds shifted suddenly and carried residues into the city of Omdurman. Last year, Sudan and Iraq completed a far more sophisticated chemical weapons plant along the Blue Nile in the Kafuri region north of Khartoum. The plant is believed to have begun test runs of nerve agents and is producing 122mm and 152mm artillery shells as well as rocket and tactical missile warheads. Iraqi intelligence agents recruited experts from Egypt, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Russia to help with the plant according to the report. The Iraqis also built a chemical weapons plant at the Yarmook Industrial Complex in the Mayu area south of Khartoum using German-made machines acquired by Iraqi intelligence and smuggled via Bulgaria. Computers were purchased in France. The site includes a mosque, medical clinic, and guest houses for foreign experts from Iraq and Iran. It even has a special farm to keep the "guests" well fed on fresh milk, vegetables, and dates. In 1995, the congressional report says, Iraq signed a secret agreement to provide Libyan leader Muammer Qadhafi with experts on ballistic missiles. Iraq also sent nuclear fuel and specialists to work on nuclear weapons development at a secret site in Sidi Abu Zurayq, in the desert about 240 miles southwest of Tripoli. Since the mid-1990s, Iraqi agents have been buying sensitive technology in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, then diverting it to Libya. Late last year, Iraq sent some of its top experts in chemical weapons to the Libyan chemical weapons facility inside a mountain at Tarhunah, 40 milies southeast of Tripoli. About a dozen Iraqi scientists involved in biological weapons research arrived in Libya at the beginning of this year. They are helping the Libyans develop a new biological warfare complex under the guise of a medical facility called General Health Laboratories. This secret program, codenamed Ibn Hayan, is aimed at producing bombs and missile warheads filled with deadly anthrax and botulism agents, according to the report.


Of Course, Patriots are Higly Suspicious


Subject: More Proof of U.S. gov False Arrests & Propaganda in 
Anthrax "Plot"

"Michael Johnson" ( wrote:

Dear Patriots:
     Here is additional proof that our benevolent federal government is
full of liars, plotters, schemers, and conspirators and they are trying 
to scare the public into giving up more U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms and rights.  In fact, they are planning on preparing the public 
to accept the FALSE fact that there are U.S. citizen terrorists trying to 
kill innocent people.
    But, the fact is that it is our own U.S. Government that is going 
to perpetrate biological warfare against us citizens (the ones who voted 
our federal leaders into office) and then try to blame good, honest, 
moral citizens for the crimes that our gov commits against us, just like 
they did in the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building blast.  Documented 
evidence shows that the federal government planted hard wired bombs 
around numerous pilings inside the building and set off the explosion 
from the inside and tried to blame it on agricultural fertilizer in a 
Ryder truck parked outside on the street.  They set up Timothy McVeigh 
really good as a patsy just the way they did Oswald in the federal 
government perpetrated Kennedy assassination.

   Please read in the following Associated Press newsrelease that even 
with all the hype about domestic terrorists that the government has 
refused to inform the public or even train them against such an 
attack ..... that is because the federal government does not want the 
public protected against any attack that the federal government wants 
to perpetrate against us.  If you are interested in how to protect 
yourself from a possible biological warfare attack upon yourself and 
your family, please feel free to contact me as that is one of the areas 
in my medical and health fields.  

   I currently operate the USC Disaster and Emergency Rescue Team 
training program and biological warfare is definitely a possibility 
whether perpetrated by foreign terrorists or by our own government.

"Michael Johnson" (


The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - U.S. Army tests have concluded that the substance
seized by agents in Las Vegas was a nonlethal form of anthrax used in
vaccines, a federal official said today.

FBI agents discovered the materials Wednesday in Las Vegas when they
descended on a beige Mercedes and its two occupants. The men were 
arrested and jailed in Las Vegas, and the substance was sent for 
testing to an Army laboratory at Fort Dietrick, Md.

The Army found that the material "is not capable of producing the toxins
that normal anthrax would produce," said this federal official, who
requested anonymity.

However, the FBI seized other material in Ohio from houses owned by 
Larry Wayne Harris, a bearded former Aryan Nation member arrested in 
Las Vegas.  That material is still being tested at Fort Dietrick, and 
those tests will not be completed before Monday.

Although the initial incident sent a shudder of fear through America, 
the first government tests have confirmed claims made Friday by lawyers 
for two men arrested in Las Vegas that they were dealing with vaccine 
material instead of weapons as the FBI alleged.

"The Army has concluded testing of the stuff from the initial arrests, 
and it is a nonlethal form of anthrax used in vaccines," the federal 
official said.

The FBI and other federal officials were planning to disclose the 
results of the first tests at a news conference in Las Vegas later 

In Las Vegas, Lamond Mills, defense attorney for William Leavitt, the
second suspect, said he had not been informed by the FBI or the U.S.
attorney's office about the test results. He called the news reports
"really good news."

"Legally, this means their case goes down the toilet," said Mills. "I
would expect the U.S. attorney to drop the charges."

Mills said he would try to get his client out of jail as early as 

An attorney for Harris and the U.S. attorney's office weren't 
immediately available for comment.

Harris and Leavitt were turned in by Ronald Rockwell in Las Vegas, 
whom the FBI portrayed as a "citizen performing his civic duty."

For his part, Rockwell said he was just plain scared when Leavitt and
Harris, who were interested in what he called a "germ-killing" machine,
said they had the deadly bacteria.

It's unclear exactly what Leavitt and Harris, both microbiologists, 
were carrying as they headed to test Rockwell's machine, but Rockwell's 
claims that the men were carrying deadly anthrax sent federal agents 
to the Las Vegas area.

Leavitt and Harris were arrested Wednesday night in the suburb of 
Henderson and charged with conspiracy to possess and possession of a 
biological agent.  They are being held without bond.

The FBI was awaiting tests to determine whether the men had anthrax 
vaccine or military-grade anthrax, which is potent enough to kill 
thousands of people.

Rockwell told the Las Vegas Sun, in a 
story made available on the newspaper's Web site, that he became 
suspicious after Harris, 46, and Leavitt, 47, changed their stories 
about plans for his purported germ-killing machine.  Rockwell felt that 
more common bacteria should be used for testing the machine and became 
nervous when they told him they had anthrax, he said.

"They just said they had military-grade anthrax," Rockwell told the Sun.

Rockwell told a similar story of his conversations with Leavitt and 
Harris on the "NBC Nightly News" on Friday.

"They lied on what they were going to do," Rockwell said. "It scared 
me so bad."

Leavitt's lawyer, Lamond Mills - a former U.S. Attorney - said his 
client didn't think the material was military-grade anthrax but rather 
anthrax vaccine, which is legal to possess.  Leavitt was initially 
shocked that he was caught up in the investigation, Mills said.

"Today he's not in shock, he's mad. He's just plain mad. We're in a
fighting mode now," Mills said.

Leavitt was only interested in Rockwell's machine, which Rockwell 
tried to sell to the men for $2 million, Mills said.  "When he couldn't 
scam them, he went the other way," Mills said of Rockwell. "He became 
a good guy for the FBI."

Harris' attorney, Michael Kennedy, said Rockwell's credibility "is
something we're going to look into."

Rockwell, who the FBI said was a cancer research scientist, was 
convicted of felony extortion in 1981 and 1982. But the FBI has 
vouched for his credibility, saying the "citizen performing his civic 
duty" came forward on his own.

In an interview with KVBC-TV, Rockwell said he didn't think the men 
wanted to infect the Las Vegas area.  "Bill Leavitt doesn't want to 
spread nothing around," he said.

The machine Rockwell was peddling was called the AZ-58 Ray Tube 
Frequency Instrument Prototype. In glossy brochures, Rockwell says 
the AZ-58 is able to flush the body clean of bacteria and viruses.

Leavitt wanted to test it before making a $100,000 down payment and
arranged to fly Harris to Las Vegas about a week ago, said Kirby Wells, 
a lawyer for Leavitt.

It was unclear how Leavitt, a Mormon bishop with strong political 
ties, got hooked up with Harris, an alleged white supremacist who has 
been plugging his self-published book about germ warfare.

The FBI has said Harris met Rockwell last summer at a Denver science
conference, while Leavitt's attorneys said they believed Rockwell got 
the men together.

Leavitt is married with three children and has a fire-protection 
business. The FBI says he also owns microbiology labs in his hometown 
of Logandale, Nev., and Frankfurt, Germany.

Harris, who is married, claimed to be a lieutenant colonel in the
Idaho-based white supremacist group Aryan Nations, the FBI affidavit 

AP-NY-02-21-98 1448EST



Just Suppose

Bradford Metcalf

Just suppose our fearless Kommander in Chief decides to attack Iraq. 
Do you think Saddam will not follow through on his threat to unleash 
biologicals in the U.S.? We've all heard the rumor that he has planted 
his (50) teams of 10 men and 1 woman throughout the U.S. just waiting 
for some moron like Teflon Willie to do something stupid. Saddam may 
be crazy but it is obvious that he isn't stupid. He would be a fool 
NOT to have an insurance policy.

Just suppose the government had figured out that this is a perfect 
time to take control of our country by martial law.  How could this 
happen? Hegelian Dialectic (sp?).  Get the population to see a 
problem (or manufacture one), offer a solution and get them to ask 
for a cure that they would normally balk at. Thesis, anti-thesis, 

Thesis -- We attack Iraq and Saddam (or maybe some special ops teams 
that just happen to look like they are from the middle-east) sends 
out a terror team to spread Anthrax throughout Los Angeles, Chicago, 
and New York City. Within a week, 25,000,000 of our population are 
dead and more are dying.

Anti-thesis-- Instead of asking why FEMA hadn't prepared for what 
our government knew would happen, our population screams that 
something has to be done to stop this from happening again.  As the 
National Guard haul off the bodies for mass cremation, our 
illustrious president says that we will have a dusk-to-dawn curfew 
nationwide until further notice.  After all, the anthrax is spread at 
night because it is most potent when sunlight hasn't hit it. At least 
that is what we will be told.  We cannot have anymore of those 
terrorists spreading that nasty bug around.  But people continue to 
drop like flies because the bug does persist. Food won't be arriving 
at the supermarket, the pharmacies have all been raided, food riots 
become widespread-there is a total breakdown coming if something 
isn't done quickly.

Synthesis--Martial Law.  The population is screaming for it. The 
government must help us.  We tell our leaders that we will do anything 
-- just stop the death.  What was unthinkable and totally unacceptable 
two weeks prior is now being begged for.

All citizens are ordered to report to their local Post Office for 
registration.  They are told they will be given food, antibiotics, 
and immunizations.  As they are marched through, they are segregated
into work groups. (Has anyone seen, "Schindler's List"?) The hard 
core patriots, militia, vocal anti-big-government types, veterans, 
gunowners and other potential troublemakers are separated out from 
the rest.  They are told they will be sent to a re-education camp 
but many of them already know that they have a one way ticket.  Some 
have heard of death camps with guillotines but thought it was just 
rumor.  Most don't object -- they have spent their life in servitude 
and obedience to a dictatorial government and they won't muster the 
courage to fight back now.

Firearms are outlawed and weapon sweeps are made. Anyone that turns 
in a gunowner will receive extra rations.  The penalty for possession 
of a firearm is summary execution.

Eventually the government "finds out" that a "fundamentalist 
Christian" group had released the anthrax.  All Christians are told 
to report for re-indoctrination.  The population is outraged and
calls for wholesale slaughter of anyone who does not accept the 
new "World Religion".  The mob screams for retribution and the 
government obliges.  The death camps are doing their work 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week.  Nobody protests because the Bill of Rights 
does not exist anymore.  Any comment about the government could get 
you sent to a death camp.

Just suppose -- no, this is America -- it couldn't happen here.



Concerning Larry Wayne Harris

THE HOFFMAN WIRE. Feb. 20, 1998. Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
                         Of Anthrax and "Aryans"

By now most of you will have heard of the story about "white
supremacists" supposedly plotting an anthrax attack on the subways 
of New York City. If one reads the "fine print" in these stories one
discovers no evidence of intent or even possession, yet the report 
has gone around the world and is headlined in newspapers as far as 

In 1993 a similarly hyped story appeared in the Los Angeles area 
about skinheads supposedly seeking to assassinate Rodney King and 
exterminate black people. The story was a hoax but it is still being 
repeated today.  A revelation of a media hoax seldom gets the 
publicity that the original hoax itself did.

However, before we absolve the "Aryans" in question of all 
culpability in this Anthrax charade, we might wish to consider a bit 
of military and espionage history.

"Black ops" is a term for counter-intelligence operations from within
enemy territority carried about by the enemy themselves and people
posing as you. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a man with an I.Q. of probably
180 or more, quickly grasped the Black Ops game in his territory and
disbanded the Ku Klux Klan as a result (because masked men who were 
not Klansmen were pepetrating atrocities in klan garb).

In the 1920s Soviet intelligence created an "anti-communist"
organization which fed "intelligence" to the West vastly inflating the
power of the White Army opposition and forecasting the fall of the
Bolsheviks. This false flag set-up helped to deter Western
anti-communists from assisting the White Army; they believed the war
against Bolshevism was nearly won, so why bother.

Later, Stalin set-up another fake anti-communist underground and 
enticed anti-communists into it. After they were pumped for secrets 
and other information, they were executed.

The Oklahoma City bombing is a case of a conspiracy mounted by people
who one would be hardpressed to describe as other than neo-Nazis, yet
their role in the bombing has been protected by the US government

Lenin coined the term "useful idiots" and that is what I believe some 
in the white separatist/Aryan Nations/neo-Nazi movement are vis a vis 
the establishment. They can always be counted on to serve as shills 
for the government.

Clinton needed state power expanded and the Murrah building went up in
smoke in Oklahoma.

The American people shouted down three top government officials of
Jewish extraction at Columbus, Ohio, and are generally demonstrating 
a weariness toward constant alarms about terrorism and what happens?
Voila -- as if on cue-- "Aryan terrorists" appear out of the 
woodwork, supposedly implicated in an Anthrax attack.

The two men apprehended are probably not guilty of the crime they are
accused of, but the leader is probably guilty of shooting his mouth 
off in a reckless and irresponsible manner, with statements that 
could easily be used to manufacture a media monster.

Folks, if you choose to represent our people in public you'd better 
damn sure know what you are doing and saying. If you need an exemplar, 
study the life of Ernst Zündel as revealed in my book, "The Great 
Holocaust Trial."

No one can accuse Ernst of being "soft" or compromising, but at the 
same time, his Canadian foes have never tried to implicate him in a 
terrorist act because the charge would be laughable.  Like the vast 
majority of native Germans, Ernst is orderly and law-abiding. He is 
the bane of terrorism, not its advocate. Journalists, cops and 
activists have all come to know, Mr. Zündel has never advocated or 
counseled violence.

Hence the "Black Ops" can't use him or his trained cadre the way 
they use these Aryan Nations patsies.

I believe with Ernst Zündel that the worst possible development now is
for separatists and other dissidents to be used as foils for the
expansion of state power and the magnification of the media's atrocity

At a news conference yesterday in Hayden, Idaho, Aryan Nations leader
Mr. Richard Butler allegedly told reporters it was okay for people to
possess anthrax.

Well, maybe it is. But to state that baldly, without elaboration or
context is to play directly into the hands of the police state and 
the media by seeming to endorse "Aryan" terrorism.

Richard Butler is old, his I.Q. has never been too high.  FBI and ATF
agents swarm throughout the staff of his organization.  Money always
seems to materialize to keep the "Aryan Nations" organization going.

The government and the establishment media continue to use the Aryan
Nations and similar groups in order to give a black eye to all of us 
who are simply normal, healthy people advocating the same sane, 
common-sense as our great-grandparents did on issues of race, religion 
and history.

Richard Butler recently called for a parade of costumed Nazis in Idaho
on Hitler's birthday. One day after he did so his call was front page
news in all local newspapers.

If this writer were to call for a revisionist history conference in
Idaho, to discuss the history of one of America's first concentration
camps -- a shameful facility which was built to imprison Coeur 
d'Alene's white miners and was policed exclusively by black troops -- 
I wouldn't get the time of day from the local newspapers.

Why? Because real revisionism and sane separatism do not press media
buttons; they do not correpond with the Hollywood stereotype and 
script.  They shatter the mind-control consensus and therefore such 
activists and campaigns are starved of publicity.

Terrorism is cowardice. It is the fighting method of aliens. I despise
terrorism and I repudiate it. I will not knowingly give any tenor of
approval to it in any form by any group.

We are to be a cut above the herd or we are nothing.

There is of course no true immunity from media lies.  We have a public 
so drunk on illusion they wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and 
bit them on the nose.  They are immersed in "virtual reality, video 
reality, TV reality," all of which are lacking in reality.

The media shoot first and ask questions later. If you're pro-white or
anti-Zionist you're at least a mental terrorist in their eyes from 
jump street.

But that's no reason for us to indulge their fantasies or to fail to
discipline ourselves and our use of language or to tolerate or 
cooperate with groups that do not fully and completely condemn and 
repudiate terrorism.

Groups like Aryan Nations have done little more than build state 
power in America. 

They have made feelings of white pride synonymous with ugliness, with
Halloween, with publicity-hungry, obese, bearded cranks emerging out 
of masturbatory fantasy worlds and pressing the media's buttons in 
order to be famous for 15 minutes.

What a grostesque, disgusting disaster such people are for our movement.

I don't know how such people were raised. I know Germans traditionally
are raised to put a premium on hard word and guarding one's mouth.

How wonderful if there was a tight-knit white separatist group in Idaho
that operated a farm and fixed elderly white people's cars and houses
for free; who raised barns and ran farm markets; who had lots of
children and steered clear of gun-toting and the media.

>From such a group would come a true base for the future. Such a group
would be a true alternative to this System.

Aryan Nations and their followers are mostly the lost children of the
age, deeply wounded by rage but without sufficient internal resources 
to channel that rage into constructive outlets. They typically live a 
TV and media-saturated daily existence in which they are happy to 
serve the starring role in some Jewish script. They react blindly and 
without intelligence.

I have heard ghetto black youths speak with a greater sense of decorum
and media-smarts than Aryan Nations members who seem to think it is
"daring" and "courageous" to expound racial expletives to the absolute
gratification of the media.

I'll tell you what takes courage--peaceable hard work, industry,
application to a trade, sinking roots and building friendships based 
on that work that last longer than the flick of a CNN camera.

I see very little in America of white community, of the concept of a
peaceable underground with its own codes, signals and members who are
building a sustainable network for their children and for the future 
as they boycott the System (I do know of isolated pockets of individual
families thus engaged).

Instead what is present is mostly media freaks drunk on false,
millennial prophecies of Apocalypse living like bums-in the
moment--without a thought beyond the next year.

When Catherine the Great invited the Germans into hostile Russian
territory as relative aliens among the Russian masses; the Germans came
and got to work: they ploughed, they planted and they ended up running
the joint.

Don't let the devils of Madison Avenue sell you on the idea that in this
electronic freak-out age, long-range planning and building are useless.

I predict this old planet might just have another 500 years on it.  I
predict that if America is submerged in an alien tide there will be 
no national Armageddon, simply a Bombay process. 

Go to India someday, see Bombay.  By American standards the city
shouldn't be running.  But it is. A basket case? Definitely. Race and
sectarian riots?  Now and then.  Corruption, murder?  You bet!

But the System keeps chugging along. India's civilization may one day 
be America's. The notion of a predictive Apocalypse is of Jerry Falwell 
by way of the Learned Elders of Rapturism. It is an enemy doctrine 
intended to keep you from every putting down deep roots and working 
for the long haul.

And terrorism?  Even if those two guys had been thinking of using 
Anthrax on New Yorkers, could their violence ever equal the violence 
of one morning in Hiroshima, one afternoon in Beirut in August of 1982 
or one night in Dresden in February, 1945? 

Is not President Billy Goat Clinton plotting the murder of several
thousand Iraqi women and children -- if not by Anthrax -- then by 
depleted uranium and massive bombing, just to please his masters in 
Tel Aviv who feel the camel-riders need a seasonal dose of genocide 
to keep them sufficiently awed.  Let's face it, Arab blood is cheap.

The idea of Anthrax on New York City or Scud missiles on Jerusalem
evokes paroxysms of outrage.  Carpet bomb Iraq?  Heh, why not, 
they're only towel-heads.

I am a Christian. One reason I am a Christian is because I believe
Christ was the smartest man who ever lived. He said we should be wise 
as serpents.

Christ gave his folowers a formula for building his movement that 
was invincible.  It was this: to suffer for the sake of the truth. 
From the early Christians to the Quakers, when men saw other men 
suffering for conscience's sake, they sympathized and they even 
converted and joined.

Whether you are Christian or not, you might at least grasp that the
"terrorist/killer" image is the nemesis of any small movement. It is 
the System's objective to forever tar us with that stigma even as 
they blithely pimp for the incineration of Baghdad.

Yes, we face incredible odds and a terrible foe but we can master 
both if we act like what we claim to represent--decency, civilization 
and law.

And if we truly intend to be separate, let's start by separating
ourselves from the retarded "Aryan" robots whose idea of resistance 
is to act on a Zionist stage, speaking lines from an FBI script, 
saving Clinton from a public relations disaster in Ohio while making 
Federal agents appear as noble guardians of public safety.

Just published-Michael A. Hoffman II's Revisionist History #5


The Inside Story of the Top Communist Operative
Who Groomed Al Gore to Rule a Soviet America

This is the most comprehensive investigative report on Armand Hammer and
Al Gore Jr. in print. Section headings include: I. KGB Asset Al Gore Sr.
II. Gore, Hammer and Gadhafi. III. Learning Lenin's Iron Law of
Conspiracy. IV. Operation Elders of Zion. V. Zion's Stealth Candidate.

As the Clinton administration sinks under a load of scandal, all eyes
are focused on his possible successor. But the skeletons in Gore's own
closet may prove to be the far greater liability.

Not available online. Hardcopy only. Revisionist History newsletter
Issue #5. "Hammered!" $6.50 postpaid. Independent History, Box 849,
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816. (Overseas send U.S.$10).
The preceding information is courtesy of THE HOFFMAN WIRE.
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor. Copyright©1998. The Hoffman Wire is
at and is maintained by donations.

Send $2.00 for a catalog of Mr. Hoffman’s books, tapes and magazines or
make a donation to: P.O. Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 U.S.A. 

To be added to our electronic mailing list send the message "Subscribe
me" to To be removed from the list, send the
message, "Unsubscribe me."



The Conspiracy Against Larry Harris


Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:36:58 EST


Terry W. Stough, B.A., M.H.A.
Founder, The American Resistance Movement
An Organization Supporting Lawful, Constitutional Government
9118 Carroll Manor Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30350
(770) 641-9042


Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.
President, Tetrahedron, Inc.
a nonprofit educational corporation
P. O. Box 402
Rockport, MA 01966

With Input From

Doug Millar, Investigator / Researcher
Dallas, Texas

Dave Adair / U.S. Government Aerospace Expert
Hollywood, California

Expressly prepared for immediate release by news agencies through 
the world.

Introduction For The Clarification
For months the two authors of this report have been at odds regarding 
issues concerning Larry Harris. However, due to a chance meeting in 
Daytona Beach, Florida at the Global Sciences Conference, on Sunday 
night, February 22, 1998, the authors had a frank and broad reaching 
discussion of the issues raised in each of our earlier written reports.  
This discussion  involved input from over a dozen participants at the 
Global Sciences Conference.  As a result of this discussion and a 
mutual attempt to resolve issues and find common ground, we were able 
to uncover additional facts which should enlighten those seeking
a more complete understanding of the true enemy Mr. Harris faces. 
This information bridges the gap between the supporters of Len Horowitz 
and those of Larry Harris who have thus far been at odds, so that we 
can all work together in greater harmony against a common enemy.

As part of our intention to act in good faith  toward a resolution of 
these conflicts, it was agreed that both sides of these issues would 
supply new information believed to be accurate and that each side 
would place its credibility on the table with respect to the accuracy 
and verifiability of the facts contained herein.

Further, it was learned during the meeting that when Larry Harris 
would do a media interview, faxes questioning the credibility of Larry 
Harris would be sent which purportedly originated from Dr. Horowitz.  
Dr. Horowitz was unaware of any such faxes.  The Harris supporters had 
originally believed that these faxes were actually sent by Dr. Horowitz, 
and believed as well that Dr. Horowitz had a large intelligence network  
at his disposal in an attempt to discredit Larry Harris.  Attempts are 
currently underway to determine the source of these faxes that may 
show  CIA involvement in efforts to use Dr. Horowitz to discredit 
Larry Harris.

Background Of The Original Document

Since mid-1997, two papers posted on Dr. Horowitz's Internet site
(tetrahedron.org_"Research, News and Views Page"_ FTP Public Access 
files) predicted that, at the right time, Larry Harris might be used 
by U.S. intelligence agencies for propaganda purposes in the realm of 
biological terrorism.  This prediction was based on several facts as 
detailed below.  It is currently our contention that Mr. Harris was 
set up by agents for the CIA in an effort to instill fear of a 
biological attack in the minds of the public; thus supporting the 
propaganda arm of the Clinton administration, in favor of Gulf war 
efforts.  The authors agree that Mr. Harris has been operating in 
good faith, and if his activities have been manipulated by agents
of the CIA, then Mr. Harris is most likely unaware of this.

Dr. Horowitz's prediction of Larry Harris's use by American 
intelligence for propaganda came true on Feb. 18, 1998 with his false 
arrest by the FBI for suspected possession of anthrax.  The 
prediction by Leonard Horowitz was based on a number of factors.  The 
first was that Mr. Harris previously worked as a biological warfare 
researcher for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (*1)  Second, 
Mr. Harris had made statements regarding knowledge of a terrorist
organization that was threatening to deploy biological weapons, such 
as anthrax and bubonic plague, against the American people.  Third, 
Harris clearly stated and warned against the threat of biological 
terrorism against the U.S.  These statements were highly consistent 
with U.S. propaganda campaigns that had already been initiated by 
official propaganda sources.  Fourth, Harris had claimed expertise in 
the area of  in biological weapons (*2)  Fifth, Harris was previously 
arrested in connection  with obtaining bubonic plague microorganisms
(*3)  Sixth, Mr. Harris believed that there was a threat from Iraqi 
nationals bringing biological weapons into this country rather than 
the belief held by Dr. Horowitz that the CIA was directly linked
to the production and illegal use of biological weapons (BW) (*4)  
Finally, Mr. Harris had provided specific details regarding the 
manufacture and distribution of biochemical weapons through his 
lectures and audiotapes.

It was this last fact that largely generated concern on  Dr. 
Horowitz's part.  Mr. Harris's supporters,  however, concluded that 
this knowledge was already in the hands of terrorist organizations, 
and Mr. Harris was distributing this information in an effort to 
inform the American people of the ease with which these weapons 
could be created and utilized. 

It was logical to conclude that Larry Harris could be easily used by 
the propaganda arm of American intelligence.  However, as was 
discussed, had it not been Larry Harris delivering this information, 
the CIA was likely to have broadcast this information in some other 
way and/or substituted another person to deliver its messages, in 
furtherance of it's purposes.  

Headline News and the Need for Biological Propaganda

On Feb. 19, 1998 the news media announced that Larry Harris, along 
with another microbiologist, William "Job" Leavitt, had been 
arrested on the afternoon of Wednesday, Feb. 18.  The charge was 
suspected possession of deadly anthrax spores.
Both Dr. Horowitz and the supporters of Mr. Harris immediately 
recognized the use of this story as a propaganda ploy.  The headlines 
in USA Today for example, was released simultaneously with the 
headline "Last chance for diplomacy?"  All participants in the debate 
concluded that this was no coincidence.  The fact that Larry Harris 
was setup and arrested at the most critical moment in U.N./Iraqi 
diplomatic efforts -- when U.S. propaganda against Sadam Hussein 
peaked -- on the eve of Secretary General Kofi Annan's final
diplomatic effort for peace and when American anxiety regarding 
"imminent" war and resulting threats of biological terrorism in the 
U.S. peaked.

Largely overlooked was the fact that: 1) production and use of BW by 
any country was a violation of the standing Geneva Accord; 2) American
corporations have been a principal Iraqi supplier of BW along with the
reagents and culture mediums required to produce them; 3) President 
Clinton had been advised that such massively destructive agents can 
be inexpensively cultured in any large kitchen today; 4) and the 
hardware used to produce these "weapons of mass destruction" can be 
easily moved within hours of an impending inspection. In light of the 
futility of periodic U.N./American inspections of Iraqi facilities 
something was clearly amiss.  Clearly, to make the American people 
support the U.S. war effort, intelligence and counterintelligence
activities would be required. 

Moreover, following the Ohio State "Town Hall Meeting" two days 
earlier, it became painfully obvious to the Clinton administration 
that Americans, if not the world, needed additional persuasion to 
endorse the bombing of Iraq.  To secure public support for the futile 
if not senseless inspections, and/or military attacks in Iraq, both 
Dr. Horowitz and the supporters of Larry Harris recognized that the 
CIA turned to the propaganda use and exploitation of Mr. Harris.

Previous and Current Events

Precedent exists for such a conspiracy theory. Recall that on the eve 
of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq in 1990, the 
American people required similar persuasion.  The public relations 
firm of Hill and Knowlton was immediately summoned.  Within hours they 
filmed a Kuwaiti Prince's niece alleging she saw Sadam Hussein's 
elite guardsmen torturing and maiming babies, pulling them from 
incubators, stabbing them, then throwing them from windows.  

The American people were aghast. War polls shot up favorably. 
President Bush declared, "This aggression will not stand!"  Then the 
war began.  Following the conflict it was determined that this entire 
Hill and Knowlton/Bush administration story was fabricated. Americans 
quickly forgot and history has repeated itself.    

Enter Mr. Ronald Rockwell.  

As was indicated in the original press release on this issue by Mr. 
Harris's supporters,  Mr. Harris and Mr. Leavitt were arrested 
following a tip by Mr. Rockwell -- an FBI informant of dubious 
integrity and a jaded history; an extortion felon convicted in 1981 
and 1982.  Rockwell told "NBC Nightly News" on Friday (Feb. 20, 1998) 
that the thought of Harris and Leavitt coming to his facility with 
military grade anthrax "scared me so bad" he called the FBI.  
This statement has many problems.  First, Mr. Rockwell knew that the 
purpose of the experiments was to find a way to kill anthrax.  Second, 
in order to do so, Larry Harris would have to use samples of an 
organism (in this case, non-weapons grade agricultural anthrax).  
Third, it was Mr. Rockwell, not Mr. Harris, who encouraged the testing 
for a potential sale.  According to Mr. Harris's intimates $20,000,000 
was the total price for the instrument's purchase.

Reported to be a cancer researcher and businessman, Mr. Rockwell, was 
said to have developed the AZ-58 Ray Tube Frequency Instrument 
Prototype.  He alleged this device was able to remove bacteria and 
viruses including "ANTHRAX" from "large numbers of people at the same 

Mr. Leavitt is said to have contacted Mr. Harris for help with the 
test.  How did Mr. Leavitt learn of Mr. Harris?  According to a 
personal acquaintance of Mr. Leavitt who requested anonymity, as 
witnessed by our groups, George Green introduced the two men. It is 
known that Mr. Green, an alleged book publisher, was a personal 
acquaintance of Mr. Rockwell.  Both men frequented Neo-nazi
organizational meetings. Mr. Harris likewise attended some Neo-nazi 
meetings, but in another state.  

Several  individuals attending the Global Sciences Conference were 
aware that Mr. Green was frequent involved in questionable financial 
dealings.  Moreover, another anonymous source revealed that Mr. Green 
had reported being asked by George Bush to head the President's 
finance committee.  

A written statement submitted by  Doug Millar, a conference 
participant, and also an acquaintance of Mr. Rockwell, provided 
further revealing insights.  He wrote:
    "As a full time investigator of violent crimes against children, 
    I have met some of the most interesting, important, weird, 
    unusual and criminal minds in America.  At a meeting I was speaking 
    at in Las Vegas last summer, a man came forward who claimed to 
    know a lot about the subject and about Las Vegas.  He said that 
    Ron Rockwell referred him to our event.  We met the next morning 
    to discuss what he knew.  He started discussing racist issues and 
    branched into neo-Nazi comments.   As someone who studied to 
    become an FBI agent for a couple of years in college, you learn 
    to build trust with people before they are willing to expose 
    their inner secrets.  

    Although I was raised to have contempt for racists and am a 
    member of the NAACP, I feigned interest, because I wanted to find 
    out why Rockwell referred such a despicable man to me.  Soon he 
    was telling me about his meetings at conventions with Mitzgar, 
    David Duke, etc..  He had also known [a] Rockwell, the founder of 
    the American Nazi Party who was killed 25-30 years ago.  Since
    he said he spent a lot of time in Vegas, I told him a story that 
    was in the local newspaper announcing that the owner of the 
    Imperial Palace Casino & Hotel had celebrated Hitler's birthday 
    with a party at the casino and Las Vegas strip.  Then I asked him 
    the main purpose of my main fishing expedition, "Where did you 
    meet Ron Rockwell?"   He shocked me with his answer, "At a local 
    Nazi meeting!"  As someone who had been invited to Rockwell's 
    home to see the Rife technology a couple of times, I can state 
    that I know many people who agree with the statement of one of 
    the top retired law enforcement agency officials in America who 
    told me, I know you can't believe anything Rockwell says!'  I 
    certainly agree with that conclusion!"

Another participant in the discussion, Dave Adair, one of America's 
leading aerospace experts, and frequent U.S. government/space 
industry consultant, indicated that he had seen and recognized unique 
equipment that Mr. Rockwell displayed during a previous Global Sciences 
meeting.  Mr. Adair knew that the equipment was build exclusively for 
the National Security Agency (NSA).  The equipment was classified 
hardware that could only have been obtained by a U.S. government agent 
with high level security clearances.  Mr. Adair stated that he had 
asked Mr. Rockwell, "What agency are you with?"  Mr. Rockwell refused
to answer his question, then walked away. 

Mr. Adair also testified to ABC news that Mr. Harris's arrest on Feb. 
19, 1998 was a "set up."

According to USA Today (Feb. 20 p. 10A) "Leavitt's two lawyers, Lamond 
Mills and Kirby Wells, suggested Leavitt may have been duped and set 
up by Rockwell.  According to attorney Mills, Rockwell was trying to 
"scam" Leavitt into buying the bogus germ-killing machine. (AP--Sat., 
Feb. 21, in The Daytona News-Journal, p. 3A.) They said Leavitt is an 
"honest businessman" here who had been negotiating with Rockwell to 
invest in his new technology and had hired Harris as a consultant. They 
said Harris had brought harmless anthrax vaccine from Ohio to test the 
technology. They suggested Rockwell told the FBI a different story in 
order to get publicity." 

Publicity indeed, but not for the AZ-58.

Rockwell, a cancer researcher, businessman, and  "scam" artist, would 
be intelligent enough to know that such a stunt would likely backfire 
given his earlier felony conviction.  He would again risk facing 
criminal charges following a thorough FBI investigation.  That is, 
unless the FBI were also involved in the ruse.  On the other hand, if 
the machine really cleared viruses and bacteria, including "ANTHRAX" 
from people's blood, and Rockwell was a smart businessman, then he 
would expect Mr. Leavitt and Mr. Harris to test the machine with the 
agents he advertised it cleared:  "ANTHRAX."  As a cancer and 
microbiology researcher, the thought of a prospective buyer bringing 
"military grade" anthrax in for such a trial should not have alarmed
him. So why then, other than to trigger a propaganda campaign, did Mr.
Rockwell alert the FBI?

In any case, Mr. Rockwell's story, and his actions, are suspicious 
if not incriminating.  Had Mr. Rockwell become an FBI informant 
earlier than reported?  Perhaps during a plea bargain that may have 
occurred in the wake of his 1982 conviction.  Could he be linked to 
the CIA?
In this case the FBI may have been involved with the CIA, or duped by 
them, in a conspiracy to generate biological terrorism propaganda. 
Investigators should carefully examine Mr. Rockwell's history for 
intelligence agency links.

It was also suspicious that following three days of studying Mr. 
Harris's anthrax vaccine, "CNN Headline News" reported (on Saturday) 
that United States Army researchers, supporting the FBI's 
investigation, were uncertain of their test results. This is 
particularly strange given that anthrax is an easy germ to identify. 
Can you imagine the risk to U.S. forces in the Gulf if it took more 
than three days to confirm an anthrax attack!

Finally, late Saturday night, "CNN Headline News" reported that the 
substance in question was indeed an anthrax vaccine, and that Mr. 
Leavitt had been freed.  Leavitt stated that under the circumstances, 
the FBI could not be blamed for his mistaken arrest.  Mr. Harris was 
still under arrest, however.  This report followed promising news 
regarding Kofi Annan's diplomatic efforts in Iraq.  U.N. officials were 
confident Sadam Hussein would comply with their inspection requirements.

The friends of Larry Harris are currently concerned about Mr. Harris's
treatment under custody.  Allegations have surfaced that Mr. Harris has 
been a member of the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist group. The long 
time friends of Larry Harris have reported that this information has 
been fabricated, as they have no knowledge of such membership. 


Any way you look at it, the effect this predicted episode had on the 
public's mind, and fear level, was consistent with the effects of 
psychological warfare.  Today the threat of domestic bioterrorism looms 
greater than ever not because of Larry Harris, but because of his 


About Leonard G. Horowitz: Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. is 
a Harvard graduate, independent investigator, and internationally known
authority in public health education.  One of healthcare's most 
captivating speakers, his book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, 
Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron, Inc., 1998), now a bestselling 
hardcover, is available through any bookstore on request, or by calling 
the publisher's toll free order line 1-888-508-4787.  For Dr. Horowitz's 
availability as a speaker please call 1-800-336-9266; and for his 
audiotapes and videotapes including: Emerging Viruses and Vaccinations 
and Gulf War Syndrome: The Spreading Epidemic Cover-up, please call 

About Terry W. Stough:  Although Terry Stough possesses substantial 
knowledge of health related issues (Masters of Health Administration, 
former Administrator of major Atlanta hospital,  etc.)  he does not 
claim any expertise in the technical issues  under discussion.  
Instead, Terry's focus in this area has been to help disseminate 
information on these issues to the public.   He is extremely pleased 
with the progress made as a result of the discussion between parties 
who have far more in common than the minor differences between them. 
Terry's main focus is to work for the restoration of lawful 


1 Larry Harris's resume is available on request by contacting Terry 

2 Items are available to lend support for Mr. Harris's knowledge in 
the field of microbiology.

3 Regarding the prior arrest, Larry Harris was convicted of wire 
fraud under an obscure "blue law" which required you to leave your 
name and phone number when you leave a message on an interstate call.  
The charge had nothing to do with possession of biological agents.  
As a economic, etc. decision, he decided to plead guilty to this 
charge in exchange for community service and probation.  As a result 
of the probation, he was required to report all activities including 
the purpose and timing of his latest trip to Las Vegas which resulted 
in his rearrest. 

4 Dr. Horowitz's beliefs were based largely on evidence compiled 
during the Frank Church Congressional investigation into the illegal 
storage and use of biological weapons by the CIA long after the 
signing of the Geneva Accord.  For details, see Dr. Horowitz's book, 
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola_Nature, Accident or Intentional? 



Common-Sense Evacuation of Biowar-Contaminated Areas


Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 08:57:55 -0800
From: wolfeyes (

NOTE:  Deep013 is an enormously valuable source of no-nonsense
information.  While I know nothing about him personally, I do know how
to tell the difference between BS and the real thing.  Deep013 is the
real thing.  -- Carl F. Worden


Dear Carl:  I hope this will do for now.  Please send it to your friend.
Dave:  please repost

Dear (deleted):

My colleague in Oregon has asked if I wouldn't mind sharing a few 
thoughts with you on the subject of preparedness for biological events.  
I'm sure you won't mind if I omit your name from this reply and forward 
it to the public lists as it seems likely that others may also share 
your concern.

To begin with, it should be understood that we are talking about 
military events and not natural phenomena.  Anthrax and humanity have 
managed to exist side-by-side for millennia without exterminating one 
or the other.  Yes, some people do sicken and perhaps die every year 
from anthrax.  Into each life, however, a little rain must fall and 
there is no way short of an apartment in outer space to avoid 
occassional contact between the human species and the anthrax virus.

Anthrax as a weapon was first developed by the British during World War 
II.  Although highly tempted by this weapon's effectiveness and the 
execrable nature of its nazi opponent, the British elected to forego 
using anthrax for two reasons -- increasingly-satisfactory progress in 
winning the war through conventional means and the possibility of 
retaliation.  Germany is densely populated but Great Britain even more 
so.  Another factor that weighed against its use was the persistent 
nature of anthrax "infection" of an area.  

The remote Scottish isle which was used as a testing ground by the 
British remains uninhabitable to this day.  Despite the menace of 
nazism, Great Britain magnanimously chose not to bequeath vast tracts 
of diseased wasteland as a lasting legacy to generations of 
as-yet-unborn, and therefore innocent, Germans (and Britons).

The danger from a military perspective lies in the concentration of 
the spores in a general area.  By this I mean that there is only a 
limited danger from one anthrax spore per acre.  That one spore is 
only going to catch one victim and only under an extremely improbable 
combination of circumstances and plain old bad luck.  Put 10,000,000 
spores in that acre and you now have a much greater chance of 
stumbling across the one that has your name on it.  These things don't 
have legs but once there in that acre they are going to be staying 
for a long, long time.

Fighting a victorious anthrax campaign here at home therefore breaks 
down into two major areas of preparedness:  early detection and 
prompt evacuation.

Although I have no understanding of the prevailing winds in your 
area of the nation, there is bound to be a seasonal pattern.  Let us 
say, for example, that the autumn winds blow generally from the north 
and west, as they do here in Colorado.  A "downwind" anthrax attack 
to the south and east of you would therefore pose little direct risk.  
An "upwind" attack, perhaps on a major city directly to the north of 
you, would require increased scrutiny of that day's particular weather 
patterns, a determination of the risk of staying put or an acceptance 
of the need for escape and an assessment of where would be the 
likeliest place to safely evacuate to.

You have generously offered a safe refuge to many of your friends and 
family but unfortunately, once contaminated on a military scale, your 
happy home will be of no further use to you ever again. No matter how 
well-sealed or properly-stocked your residence may be, the large 
concentrations of anthrax in a militarily-infected area will persist 
and will eventually claim even the best-prepared group.  YOU MUST GET 

This evacuation would ideally take place long before the anthrax 
spores, drifting lazily on the wind from their point of release a 
hundred or so miles away, reach your neighborhood.  There is an old 
Chinese proverb that says:  "A wise man is prepared to abandon his 
baggage once or twice in a lifetime."  If you hear of an upwind 
attack, don't wait.  Jump in the car, roll up the windows, and don't 
stop for gas or to use the restroom.  Drive on and devil take the 

Suppose, however, that you wake up in the morning and hear about an 
overnight incident in that city to the north of you.  By now, perhaps, 
local areas are already beginning to experience deposition of 
biological agents.  You still need to get out of town, but now you 
need to get out of town "slowly".  Don't panic.  Close all the doors 
and windows and keep everyone inside.  Hopefully you have a vehicle 
sitting in your attached garage.  

Get everyone inside the car.  Use a roll of duct tape to seal all of 
the door cracks and around the edges of all the windows except the 
driver's door window.  Seal the heater's air intake vent (that grate 
just underneath the windshield wipers).  Climb inside your open 
driver's side window and roll it up.  Use more of your duct tape to 
seal this window from the inside.  Hit your garage door opener, start 
the car, and head for the hills.  

Be aware that a tightly-sealed vehicle can eventually generate large
quantities of carbon monoxide so get out of the "downwind" track of 
the anthrax as soon as possible.  If you need to replenish the air 
supply in your passenger compartment before getting to safety, bring 
the vehicle to a complete stop, preferably under some sort of overhead 
shelter -- underneath a bridge or a gas station canopy, and then open 
your driver's side window.  A wet towel can perhaps be used an an 
improvised air filter.  Once the air is renewed, roll your window back 
up, retape the edges and drive on.

In the event of heightened international tensions, a specially-
prepared "survival vehicle" could be readied for use.  In additon to 
the above preparations, NBC-rated masks and disposable suits could 
be stored inside the vehicle along with some necessary survival 
supplies, changes of clothes and shoes, first-aid supplies, a firearm 
or two, important family legal documents, valuables and heirlooms and 
perhaps some spare gas cans.  Double-wrapping all items in sealed 
garbage bags wouldn't hurt.  If the best you can do for overgarments 
is dust masks and disposable paper suits from a paint store, then use 
these.  A box of garbage bags and some rolls of duct tape are 
excellent materials for the improvisation of emergency escape suits 
if you have nothing else.  

A military-style overpressure generation system for the passenger 
compartment can be improvised through a bottle of compressed air 
or oxygen.  This system, wherein the valve of the bottle is cracked 
just slightly open, raises the atmospheric pressure inside the 
compartment to a level slightly higher than that outside the 
compartment.  Any "bugs" or viruses that waft their way towards your 
vehicle are going to have to swim "upstream" to get through that
river of air rushing out of all the miniscule crevices-- a rather 
unlikely proposition.  Be aware of the increased fire and explosion 
hazard if you use pure oxygen for your overpressure system.  
Compressed air would be best.  Use oxygen only as an emergency 
alternative.  Don't raise the pressure so high as to cause damage 
to your health, particularly eardrums, or so that you run out
of overpressure perhaps when you need it the most.  Just enough and 
no more.  Gauges from an oxy-acetylene welding kit could be used to 
measure the available supply of overpressure and regulate its 

As I am writing "off the cuff", I have no idea of the best possible 
psi setting for this sort of usage but it shouldn't be too hard to 
discover through asking questions of a local science teacher or by 
simple experimentation.  The important thing is to have the hardware 
available.  Knowledge of the proper settings on the gauge but no 
bottle of compressed air will be of much less use than a bottle of 
compressed air and no idea of the proper psi setting.  Use your head 
and be careful when experimenting.  Work your way up gradually.  
Don't blow the windows out of your station wagon.  This means that 
you have TOO MUCH overpressure.

Once a safe area is reached, possibly at an established 
"decontamination site" on the perimeter of the exposed area, you 
should expect to abandon your "contaminated" vehicle.  Being able to 
prove that your personal goods were stowed ahead of time and 
double-sealed might enable you to keep them from being confiscated.  
Another solution might be to "drop them off" somewhere close to the 
reception area prior to reporting in and quietly retrieving them
later.  Government civil defense manuals generally recommend the 
disarming of refugees in fallout shelters and I would imagine that 
a similar policy would be in effect at these reception sites.  Keep 
this in mind and make your own plans accordingly.

All of the above is written not as an exhaustive remedy for biological
contamination but merely as my own thoughts that have occurred to me 
during composition of this letter.  I am sure that I have omitted 
much and perhaps given some inaccurate advice here and there.  As is 
the case with practically everyone else, I am no expert on the subject 
of biological weapons and fervently hope that I never have the 
opportunity to become one.  Others with more knowledge may perhaps be 
kind enough to forward corrections, improvements, or denials and thus 
we may all end up with an increased understanding of the most useful 
preparations to take in the event of an actual emergency, however 
unlikely its occurrence may be.

To sum up, I would urge you not to "make a stand" against biological 
weapons.  Long distance is much, much better than being there.  If 
your home is in the path of a biological delivery system, it is going 
to be permanently, irretrievably lost to you and you must not allow 
sentimental attachment to stand in the way of the safety of yourself, 
your family or your friends. 

My own personal feeling is that a biological attack from Saddam 
Hussein is not quite as likely to occur as is an invasion from Mars 
but that is a subject which requires a detailed marshaling of 
previous history, present trends, and personal motivations to 
explain properly and will therefore have to wait for a day or so.

Although this may not be the advice you were expecting to receive, I 
hope that it is nevertheless of value to you.

The Union forever




Return Fire! -- Letters to the Editor

To: "Martin Lindstedt" (
Subject: In parting


Your stand on biological warfare has crossed the line, in my 
opinion.  It's one thing to have the heart and soul of a warrior, 
as I'm sure you believe you have. Terrorism, however, is not a 
discipline for warriors.

A warrior knows who his enemies are, and I think you do.  However, 
he also attacks his enemies and avoids inflicting damage that does 
not directly advance his objective.  Biological weapons are useless 
in that regard.

A warrior must determine what it is that matters most to his enemy, 
and attack it with sufficient credible force to cause the enemy to 
lose sight of his own strategic objectives.  If what you say about 
the current American regime is true, your enemy couldn't care less 
about collateral casualties from a bio attack. He'll simply hold 
the perpetrators up as monsters to be wiped out (as he did some of 
the OKC perps), and he'll wipe them out with the blessing of the

After your hypothetical bio attack on major cities, your hypothetical 
demand for the heads of the regime's officials would be met, not with 
craven compliance, but with howls for your hypothetical head.

Wherever you're going with this, I for one will not follow.  You're 
not aiming to overturn a regime -- you're seeking a false dream of 


   First of all, I have a good deal of respect for the person who 
wrote the above letter to me, and shall, unless he requests otherwise, 
let his name remain anonymous.  Having a respect for that person, I 
feel that I cannot just blast him for his prejudices held in common 
with the common man, but must answer directly his points brought 
forward, as they are held in common by the mass humanity of today's 
middle element.

   First of all, a lot of people think that my stand on biological 
warfare, as enunciated above, is beyond the Pale.  So let me 
reiterate my stand once again:

    1) Biological warfare, as it is cheap and strategically effective, 
       can be used by practically anyone or everyone who has a 
       grievance against a criminal regime or government.

    2) Sooner or later it will be used to effect.

    3) Therefore (and this is what I hear the bitching about), it is 
       imperative that the Resistance develop, and implement as 
       necessary, such biological weaponry.

   So let me show why the third premise is both moral and necessary.

   The writer of the above letter makes the mistake, common in a 
decaying democracy, of equating morality with majority rule.  That 
which would be criminal is acceptable if a majority can be found 
to ratify such behavior.  It is also an unspoken assertion that the 
majority has immunity for their ratification of official misconduct.  
Hence there is "good" terrorism and "bad" terrorism; any 
extermination of the majority by those who would fight fire with 
fire is morally unacceptable.  Such is the morality of the pack of 
dogs running and killing sheep; such is the morality of a lynch mob 
hiding behind white sheets; such is the morality of a decaying 
democracy's police forces burning down a church.  The dogs (and their 
owners) will feel unjustly treated if you were to shoot them as they 
run home after their sheep-killing.  The KKK would foam at the mouth 
if some nigger were to firebomb their Klavern at the Wednesday nite 
meeting before a mere cross burning.  And the good voters and Clinton 
supporters can be counted to foam at the mouth and blame Iraqis and 
militiamen when the big cities are inevitably biowarred.  There is 
the feeling -- common with both dogs and low-grade humanity -- that 
the anonymity of the pack for criminal activity performed in common 
should confer immunity from justice.

   There is no such thing as "good" terrorism or "bad" terrorism. 
Terrorism is simply the use of violence or the threat of violence 
to obtain political results.  Power is the measure of applied 
terrorism.  One cannot have power without using terrorism.  Power 
is making people do what they would not otherwise do unless they 
were terrorized into doing it.  
   Terror is a neutral concept.  There is no such objective thing 
as "good" terrorism or "bad" terrorism.
    Whenever necessary, I threaten my two-year-old grand-daughter 
to stop playing with the shortwave radio antenna.  She has already 
bent the antenna.  When the threat of a spanking doesn't achieve 
results, then the child is swatted, picked up, and locked out of 
the room wherein the shortwave radio is stored.  Normally, she 
would, if allowed to do so, break off the remaining antenna. 
So her normal behavior towards a destructive curiosity has been 
modified by my use, or the threat of it, of force.  Similarly, 
I have spanked the child for running out into the street without 
adult supervision, having made it a policy that she understands.
    Now I could justify my use of force to bend my granddaughter 
to my will as being "for her own good."  I do so all the time.  But 
yet is not the same analogy used by the police forces of the current 
regime in their usages of force and violence?  That such is used to 
justify the usage of violence against the individual "for his own 
good" and "for the good of society?"  Of course it is.  We have 
seen the murder by gas and fire of the Waco children under color 
of Janet Reno's professed concern for their safety.  Thus a hired 
police soldiery, Patrick Henry's "Engines of Despotism" are used to 
collect taxes and for the [law-] enforcement of the will of those 
people in power.  We live under a police state.  Some of us have 
had enough of it.

   So the imposition of terror is the only reason for a soldier 
or a policeman to exist.  An efficient soldier studies how to 
impose terror or its threat so that the enemy won't have the will 
to fight.  Thus the study of how to efficiently implement terror 
is the PRIMARY, maybe ONLY, discipline or study for a soldier.  
The only room for the consideration of morality is for the soldier 
to decide which side he is on.
   So which side, my friend, are you on?  That is the only moral 
question left.

   In a decayed society which has willingly embraced a police 
state -- a leviathan of lawlessness -- who are the enemies of 
the individual who would live in freedom?  And the answer is 
that state and that society.  A police state consists of a war 
of each against all.  Since this police state is indeed a democracy 
in its final stages of decay, with not one Adolph Hitler in charge
holding final responsibility but rather 100 million little hitlers 
voting against individual survival, a weapon such as biological 
warfare wherein the individual can effectively retaliate against 
the amoral majority of mass man is by definition targeted against 
the right and responsible target.  If society is at war with the 
individual and would put him to death or take away his liberty or 
property, by what moral consideration could the masses complain 
about their destruction at the hands of an individual or smaller 
tribe?  In a social order wherein might makes right, as is used 
to justify the tyranny of the masses, when might swings over to 
the militarized minority then there cannot be any moral reasoning 
for complaint against retaliatory destruction.
   For those who would claim some nebulous moral superiority for 
the lives of the masses against that of the individual, let me 
remind them that Christianity is founded upon the principal that 
the life of one superlative individual is worth that of all of 
humanity.  Those who would find fault with such a moral implication 
of the value of the individual over that of the corrupt herd should 
quarrel with Christ and God over such moral judgments.  
   Likewise, as this particular nation-state was founded upon a 
basis of at least professed Christianity, it is the value of the 
individual, his quality, which is the professed foundation of the 
founding documents, which proclaim the moral worth of the individual 
over the mass collective.  It is the decay of Christianity 
paralleling the decay of the old civic religion which is behind the 
rational of a New World Order allowed absolute power with minimal 
responsibility ruled by an oligarchy of the base which has brought 
about the current political disorder which will end in disaster.
Woe unto them who sowed the wind which became a whirlwind!

   So given the current reality, why should I rail against the 
means of the coming destruction?  Even if I had power to disclaim 
a just vengeance committed through the agency of a Resistance 
Action Force cell (which I do not, as I am a Resistance Political 
Front operative) why should I?  Does it really matter to you all 
that much as to whether mass man and mass 'civilization' is 
destroyed by the superlative outpourings of this criminal regime's 
Marburg-Smallpox-HIV genetically spliced viral agents as opposed 
to the cruder Iraqi VX anthrax, (which has the benefit of a U.S. 
Army pedigree) or even more crude Resistance anthrax strains?  
Would you not be as dead?
   Far better to understand the realities of biological warfare 
and take certain common-sense steps such as living away from 
Sodom and Gomorrah, and preparation in imposing a tight quarantine 
free from contagion.

   Now as whether you believe that the current regime would be 
so foolish as to biowar a major (or minor) city or two and blame 
it on Iraqis, militiamen, or any other enemies of the regime is 
irrelevant.  But yet they are indeed just that idiotic in their 
murderous pursuit of power.  They were stupid enough to pull a 
Waco, weren't they?  And compound their stupidity in blowing 
up the support columns of that OKC federal building and blaming 
it on their Manchurian Oswald McVeigh.  This stupidity of theirs 
polarized the country, separated the Resistance element from the 
politically correct militia generals and CONstitutionalidolators, 
and brought forth a cold sweat on the part of the regime criminals 
as to whether their Manchurian Oswald would spill the beans at his 
show-trial and bring down the regime in a welter of civil warfare.
   There is no doubt that the current regime criminals, Democrat 
or Republican, same thing, are so stupid and criminal that they 
would indeed biowar a major city other than Washington or New 
York.  Would the patsies or manchurian oswalds be blamed and 
executed forthwith?  Of course.  But what would the score be?  
Enemies of the state a half-million [corpses], state regime 
    In any case, the regime criminals would lose.  A number of 
people, the fighting element first, would blame the criminal regime 
for the biowar, the same way a number of us place blame upon the 
regime for Waco and OKC.  Additionally, since the only defense 
against biowar is quarantine, the coming biowar will favor the 
Resistance elements living in rural areas, prepared in both 
temperament and prior supply for a survival strategy.  The survivors 
of direct biowar attack will be those who have superior resistance 
to disease, much like the survivors of the Black Death were.  So 
given these characteristics of the surviving elements, Resistance 
and victim, what do you think will happen to the "leadership" of 
this country given that they will end up being the scapegoats for 
the war they caused?  
   What would you do if you come across a nest of these vipers 
living high in their subterranean refuges with plentiful food and 
antibiotics against the disease they spread that had killed your 
family and friends?  What if this nest of vipers was a bi-partisan 
effort, if you seen Newt alongside of Chelsea?  Would it be enough 
to make you at least swear off of Republican Party fundraisers?

   As for the advisability of Resistance counter-biowarring major 
cities unless regime heads are collected, let me explain further.  
As said before, such a Resistance option shouldn't be pursued 
unless and until the major infestations in Washington and New York 
City are first cleared up.  In any case, biowar politics is such 
that usually no warning whatsoever is given, as the purpose of 
biowar is the destruction of that particular population and its 
ruling regime criminals.  This is particularly the case if it is 
the Resistance, the Iraqis, who which launch that particular biowar.  
   It might even be some crazed lunatic, maddened by injustice and 
gaining something better than a post-office special, who launches 
a biowar.  In which case he might not help but claim credit for that 
attack, launched in his grim vengeful purpose by regime injustice.  
Does anyone really think that Carl Drega or the Connecticut Lotto 
official shooter was one of the Resistance?  They weren't!  Yet 
a vast number of us take immense personal satisfaction from regime 
criminals getting theirs from their suicidal victims who snap!!  
The only annoyance that I have with JJ Johnson is that he 
apologized for wanting to name every street in Amerika "Carl 
Drega Avenue!!!"  You can count on myself and the smarter of 
the Resistance Political Front to call for the stacking of regime 
criminal heads on the kort-house lawn as penance for evil whenever 
the political moment is right.  A Revolutionists' solution ALWAYS 
is the extermination of the criminal oligarchy.

    But to further answer your question, options such as trading 
regime criminal heads for forbearance from biowar is one which 
would only be offered to major cities which the Resistance 
biowarrior was inclined to spare.  In the event that the messenger 
was murdered, the likely penalty for killing this ambassador would 
be that the next ten cities would be offered no such option.
    In any case, the rulers of the cities have always had to act 
as hostage for the conduct of their cities.  This moral reality 
has been lost while under the spell of criminal democratic poly-
ticks, so much so that the black-robed judicial baal-priests 
have declared themselves, prosecutors, police, and city 
legistraitors immune for their official misconduct.  (See the week 
of March 2, 1998's Supreme Kort decisions for confirmation.)  So 
if it means the survival of you and your family as opposed to 
the survival of the local state-god baal-priesthood and their 
families, does anyone really think that they would harbor a regime 
criminal at such expense?  Not to mention that there are some people 
who would welcome such a biowar directive or ultimatum.  What would 
Carl Drega do if he were alive today?

   And lastly, with your decision that you cannot support myself 
or my side, well, I support that decision -- for now.  But let me 
inform you that sooner or later you will have no other choice other 
than to choose a side, and I hope that based upon our friendly 
relationship in the past that you will be on the side which shall 
survive, which is ours.  The current criminal regime is a stupid 
and greedy one, and it has no thought, no plan for the future other 
than the parasitic one of continued spoliation over the masses of 
white-chicken Amerika.  If you choose to stay in the mediocre 
middle you will in effect be caught in the crossfire.  In the words 
of Jesus Christ, those who are not for us are against us, and we 
will accept no fence sitting from the Homer Simpsons of the mediocre 
middle.  That is just the way it is.
   My particular favorite section of the Bible deals with the 
interaction of the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, Elijah 
in his interactions with Ahab, Jezebel, the ruling elements of 
the state-god baal-priesthood, and the people of the Ten Tribes 
of Israel.  I have lampooned the situation wherein today's events 
parallel that which happened 2800 years ago in one of my previous 
stories, Last Kings, Chapter One.  I 
look forward to further 
lampooning our sick amoral society with other similarities to 
the situation of today.  But there is a grim side to Elijah's 
triumph over the House of Ahab and the baal-priesthood by raising 
Jehu to the throne.  After Jehu's absolute destruction of the former 
regime and Jehu's reward of a four-generation dynasty, the brunt 
of God's wrath fell on the people, and the Israelites were destroyed 
and scattered as a people by the Assyrians.  Sooner or later the 
people do pay for their acceptance of evil rulership.
   But what do you think happened to the poor widows of these 10 
Tribes during the time Elijah spent at the home of the Sidonian 
widow during the famine caused by the lack of rainfall as predicted 
by Elijah?  If a Canaanite widow on the edge of the famine area 
was reduced to preparing to eat bark and then having her and her son 
die of starvation, what do you suppose happened to the 
Israelite widows and orphans who did not have God to provide 
for them through Elijah during the famine?  Contrary to popular 
belief, then and now, the safest place to be is on the side of good 
and justice.

   I can assure you that I do not have a death wish nor a desire 
for martyrdom.  My only fear is that I shall die before my work 
is completed.  I do not have a calling from God -- HE did not need 
to call for my assistance.  In this day and age, a burning bush 
or a hallucination is unnecessary for the calling of HIS own.  It 
is expected that those to whom much has been given should exercise 
their gifts without the need to be chased down, much less swallowed 
by a whale.  The way should be clear to those who have clear 
vision; a broad path so obvious that the way of duty cannot be 
ignored or slighted.
   You have been honest to me so far.  You have given me no problem 
or grief so far.  If you cannot continue with me, then I do indeed 
understand your balking, like Balaam's ass.  But I seriously doubt 
that there is an angel of God in your path with a drawn sword, 
demanding that you stop.  Rather it is a chimera drawn out of your 
social indoctrination by today's state-god baal-priesthood which 
tells you to stop, that you cannot go further, that you dare not 
even look past the mind's obstacles barring the path to the ford 
over River Jordan.
   But if you must stop, if you cannot continue, then go in peace, 
my brother, back to the apparent security of Moab like Orpah, 
Ruth's sister-in-law.  I wish you a better fate than what befell 
Lot's wife, looking back at what was the pleasures of downtown 
Sodom, unable to face the grim realities of survival in the 
mountains.  Still, the fate of Amerika, like that of Sodom, is 
understandable to anyone with an appreciation of reality given this 
solipsistic wastrel culture's affinity for evil and death.  I think 
that sooner or later reality will scare you into activity, and that 
you have thus chosen by default to run for your life to a place of 
safety at a later date -- alone.
   In any case, I have kept your identity anonymous.  I do hope 
you will reconsider a parting of the ways.  I am

Most Sincerely Yours,

--Martin Lindstedt




Copyright 1998. The Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette



Back to The Patriot Coalition?
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line