Nothing left now but . . .

Or to Arms.


The Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette

June 15, 1997, Issue #5-97

Post Manchurian Oswald Show Trial


Purpose: Our purpose is to serve the Resistance/Patriot Movement as a bi-weekly 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. A Whirlwind of Vengeance
3. What is the basis for the McVeigh Verdict?
4. Wish There Was One Good Juror
5. Defining Ourselves on the News Front -- Post Timothy McVeigh
6. "Constitutional Militias no Threat" sez Federal Butchers Incorporated Head GubbnmintGunGoon
7. Infiltration? Or Idiocy?


Friday the Thirteenth -- Judgement Day

The Show-Trial of the Manchurian Oswald is past its mid-point and the ruling criminal elites got what they wanted from their packed judas-jury: a sanctimonious judgement affirming that Timothy McVeigh acted alone, motivated by the "disaster" at Waco. The cowardly hope is that now our ruling criminal classes can go back to business as usual -- looting from the productive, shrilly proclaiming that "All is Well! Justice was Done! Don't Panic, Don't Panic!" -- trying to keep the social superstructure afloat until they get theirs and it's cut-and-run time to places that don't know them yet.

Even in this morally obtuse world, people sense that something is wrong. They know something wicked slipped past our feeble social defenses and now it threatens to destroy us all. A counter to state terrorism has come to Amerika. We know full well that the Manchurian Oswald did not act alone, aided solely by the sullen acquiescence of Terry Nichols. We sense the blood-trail leads to the highest levels, with large stagnant pools of senseless Gore from previous victims puddled in the halls of the (In)Justice Department with the tracks leading directly to the First Murderer. We know we share the complicity of guilt, because we knew and yet we did nothing. We hope that with the execution of Scapegoat McVeigh his blood will wash away our sins and all will be well. But the Manchurian Oswald is not Jesus Christ. We are responsible for our sins of omission and commission. The penalties for our social sins may well be our death as a civil society.


EVERY SOCIETY IS COMPOSED OF INDIVIDUALS who must interact together in a state of peace. This is why every society has written or unwritten code, custom, or law. If enough individuals cannot live together in peace, then sooner or later a society breaks down into a condition of warfare of "each against all" and no man's life is safe. It is a waste of time to prattle about the excellence of the laws when the people who are supposed to obey them are lawless. Without a sense of decency and self-discipline, self-government collapses and without external order imposed then so does that given society.

Right now this country is at the stage wherein the ruling elites have lost their will, reason and right to govern. Criminals and the dregs of society have taken over all the branches of government and rule atop a seething and unruly social order. We all know what kind of amoral murderous fat weasel rules as First Criminal. Our KongressKritters are thieves who sold themselves to the special interests for campaign contributions. The entire judiciary is composed of a criminal class of lawyers which sold itself to the interests of the social system's rulers in exchange for a monopoly license to steal from the rest of the social order. This rising tide of moral filth rolling downhill has demoralized the working poor, who wonder why they should obey laws from which the government elites have made themselves exempt. Fine words designed to bring the sheep in for another shearing notwithstanding, nobody entrusts themselves to the decency of the government.

We live in the terminal stage of public order where murder is judged not by the objective standard of whether a human being has been killed at the hands of another , but on political criteria concerning who is the murderer and who is the victim. A woman holding a baby while opening the door for her husband to run inside is not a murder victim if the bullet that drilled through her skull and splattered her brains and blood all over her baby and her kitchen was a government bullet triggered by a government sniper. A teenage kid shot in the back and killed is not a murder victim if the people who did it were "law-enforcement" agents. Nor are those marshals murderers if the government chooses to reward them for their cowardice with medals and refuses to prosecute them. An infant trapped inside a burning building and shot in the head by a sobbing parent is not a murder victim if it was a government tank which set the fire and destroyed its escape route. In this decaying society, what used to be straight-forwardly called murder is now a matter of semantics defined by the powerful. Moral terms have been replaced by political calculation. A homicide is not a murder unless the government says it is -- in one of their own courts. Anyone who cannot figure this out deserves to be shot in the head and have his body taken out and dumped in a public park so it can be pronounced 'a suicide' by park police and government prosecutors.

Of course, this sort of justification for state-sponsored terrorism and murder cannot stand indefinitely. The shock of watching such evil flourish unpunished is replaced by a sense of outrage. The outrage brings forth cries for justice and vengeance. When these demands go unfulfilled, some Timothy McVeigh takes it upon himself to answer in kind. No telling how many McVeighs were forestalled in their plots by limited means and opportunity, however. Sometimes, as in the case of McVeigh, the government makes available all the means for a limited vengeance so as to have an excuse for further repression.

This was extremely short-term thinking. Now that the current regime has lost all of its subjected population's love and trust, only fear and tribute can be used to pacify those former subjects. Tribute doesn't work because there is never enough loot to pay off the greedy and parasitic, and the productive people the government needs to have on its side are the very pockets out of which comes the tribute. Fear works for a while, but eventually fear forges a hardened opposition working towards revenge and the absolute destruction of the former ruling elites and their tools of oppression. So it has been throughout history. So it is today.

There never would have been a modern Resistance movement except for the crimes of the Clinton regime. The Resistance sat and simmered in impotence throughout the late '60's, '70's and '80's. The government committed criminal activities and ate out the foundations of their rule during those years. The criminal activities were visited only upon the down-and-out and the knowledge of them was limited to the perpetrators. Now the whole social order rocks and trembles at every new outrage. No one is safe. All live in fear of injustice. Because of this, now the Resistance does not lack a pool of revolutionary ground troops.

Revolutionary moral and intellectual talent are always present in every civilization. Before the arrival of an openly criminal Clinton regime signaled the end of hope for the current order, this talent was wasted in propping up the social order. No longer. There is a large Resistance junior officer corps, waiting for the moment to act. What the Resistance lacks are its communication, command and control linkages and relationships of trust between an experienced revolutionary officer corps. These linkages and relationships are now being quietly formed during this period of peace, no peace.


PART OF THE LINKAGE AND RELATIONSHIP BUILDING must be the principled canonization of a St. Timothy McVeigh.

(I will pause here for a moment while the self-righteous squeal in fury. Please log off now and don't come back.) . . .

Still able to reason? Good. I shall explain the basis for this action's morality.


EVERY POPULATION HAS A CERTAIN AVERAGE LEVEL OF MORALITY which will decide its level of civilization. While this level of civilization can be influenced at certain points by the purposeful action of its outstanding individuals, for all practical purposes the destiny of a civilization will follow the course of the conduct of the average man in the streets. This is especially so in the case of a decaying democracy such as ours because an outstanding moral leader lacks the efficiency of direct transmission of his moral values being imposed by force as would be the case with a dictatorship or monarchy. Never before has the level of our civilization been so low because the moral capacity and reasoning of our "average man" is so low.

Every day one hears the rancid smugness of homo unsapient nonsapients whining about how many government workers' children were blasted at Oklahoma City without nary a whimper about the children at Waco. Mention what happened at Waco and you are deemed a potential terrorist. Look at a any celebrity talk show and every single one of those tinseled elites are begging that McVeigh be fried. None of them dare put a fraction of the low animal cunning used to promote themselves into a reasoned analysis of these moral issues. And since these vain babblers live by sucking up onto these media organs' organs, it should come as no surprise that the rabble will ape the moral posturings of their idols.

The good news is that there is a cloud hanging over the Show Trial of the Manchurian Oswald. Anyone able to think could have predicted the course of the trial by setting as an infallible guide that whatever was the interests of the government would be the eventual ruling. The interests of the government demanded that Timothy McVeigh be railroaded into a guilty verdict and a penalty of death with as little collateral damage to the regimes' pretensions to legitimacy as possible. And so it was done. Any evidence of government knowledge or involvement was hushed up. The hanging judge declared every single time as necessary that the government was not on trial and left unsaid, but implied, that the government never would be on trial. The only reason Waco was mentioned was to establish a supposed mental pathology dictating vengeance as motivation for McVeigh's unprovoked and solitary attack.

The best way to catch average man in his shoddy moral onanisms is to suggest the government was involved in blowing up its own federal building. This Amerikan Reichstag scenario posits that while McVeigh did set off the truck bomb, a series of demolition charges were set on the structural columns waiting for the signal. Then the criminal regime could blame its enemies for the truck bomb and legislate and criminalize them out of existence. When you mention this scenario to average man, he becomes agitated. You can measure his level of moral degradation by the measure of his agitation. This test puts him in a spot. If he admits the possibility of this alternative reality, then he will be set up for the already-answered confirmation that he is a coward by the follow-up question, "What are you going to do about it then?" He does not want to openly admit to anyone, least of all himself, that he will do absolutely nothing because he is scared and only out for himself. Freedom to him is a well-paid factory job, availability of pornography to masturbate over, lots of booze and drugs to deaden his senses, abortion to do away with any child conceived because he/she was too lazy to use contraception -- anything that might shield him from responsibility for the consequences of his actions or inactions or from having to think. So he will have to go with the only option left: Attack his questioner-tormentor. "How dare you say the government blew up their own building?"

The reason posited by the media jackals for the lack of public enthusiasm for this show-trial is false. The Amerikan people are not satisfied that justice was done. Rather they are scared of digging into what really happened, lest they might have to do something about it. They want it over and done with and McVeigh fried as soon as possible because his moral absolutism is an reproach to them. This is why they sullenly listen to the idiotic rational that when McVeigh is no more that it will serve as a lesson to deter other would-be terrorists. They will ignore the fact that things will get worse in a rising orgy of terror and counter-terror, because Timothy McVeigh knew full well, like anyone knows who would draw the sword of vengeance, that it is against 'the law' to destroy the lackeys and chattels of the ruling elites.


BUT THESE LESSONS CANNOT BE LEARNED in the absence of teachers. This is why it is the Resistance must lead in the canonization of St. Timmy. Nobody else can do it. Nobody else will do it. Nobody else should do it.

The McVeigh show-trial proved nothing. This is an era where a corrupt police laboratory could have conclusively proved Martians had done the bombing if they had wanted to do so. We have heard over the past two years so many trial balloons floated past as if the government wanted to see what lie would sell. Has anyone assigned engineering students to sit right down with a list of mathematical tables and work out if the destruction of the OKC building according to the feds was possible under the laws of physics? We do know that persons who did comment on the impossibility of the fed scenario, like Brigadier General Partin, were not allowed to testify in government court.

So why have some leaders in the militia movement wavered and demanded the death of Timothy McVeigh on the "proof" presented by our enemies? What is the matter with them?

Their problem is that they want to build a coalition on a broad-based support which is simply not present. They want to claim to be a "Constitutional militia" when no such thing exists when applied to the case of their badly eroded and government-infiltrated private armies. When put on the spot, they have wavered or tucked tail and run on the question of what should be done about Timothy McVeigh. Like the judas-jury they have convicted McVeigh and pronounced the death penalty on him. They have given the government something that it never should have been given by force of arms or by clink of silver -- their approval of the 'justice' of Timothy McVeigh's trial. They have given an illegitimate kangaroo kourt a gloss of legitimacy. But there is a penalty for tucking tail and running out on principle: Your ass gets chewed, and then everyone seeing your pore chewed ass, former friend or eternal foe, knows you are a coward and despises you for it.

Even if Timothy McVeigh was guilty of driving up in a Ryder truck, lighting the fuse, and running away, as the government tale goes, then he still is a Resistance hero. Did we not say that Waco should be avenged? While some of us whined, blustered and formed open militia groups, about three years ago Timothy McVeigh set out on a path to do just that -- avenge Waco. He formed and led a Resistance cell according to the tenants of revolutionary doctrine. Even though his cell-mates betrayed him and his plans were revealed through informants to the BATF, he did not call off his action. If he was a government stooge all along, his involvement has redounded to the moral destruction of his masters. Why should any revolutionary have a problem with a programmed fanatic hired by the government destroying a government building, killing government workers and collaborators, and in the ensuing cover-up destroying the last of that government's moral authority? If we did canonize St. Timmy, what is the government going to do? Admit that he was one of theirs all along?

The most popular Resistance scenario now is that Timothy McVeigh set out to avenge Waco, recruited his former Army buddies, that for about a year they wandered around at guns shows and Elohim City getting their nerve up. Where did they get the money for ammonia nitrate, guns, motel rooms and rental on a Ryder? The most popular conspiracy theories point to either the Middle East or to Aryan Republican Army bank robbers financed and controlled as agents provocateur by the BATF. A BATF female informant told her fed controllers either the Tulsa or Oklahoma City federal buildings would be destroyed by a bomb on April 19, 1995. From there, it is a staple of conspiracy theory dogma that the BATF set charges on the building's support columns and waited for Timothy McVeigh and John Doe #2 to set off the truck bomb as a signal to destroy the rest of the columns.

Having the main outlines of this Resistance doxology in place, it should be relatively easy to proceed with the canonization of St. Timothy, fearless Avenger of Waco; The Manchurian Oswald done to death by a guilty cowardly government cabal of assassins and thieves. If there is any whining for the OKC children, ask the sanctimonious if they cried for the Waco children. If anyone says that bombing and running away is cowardly, ask when the cowardly government is going to equip freedom-fighters with the same weapons with which it arms its cowardly storm-trooper goons. You would like a full automatic MP-5 and M-16 with plenty of ammo, two nuclear weapons and a freeze-dried packet of anthrax, please. If anyone professes to want justice done and for St. Timmy to be hung right away, ask when Bill and Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, the FBI and BATF and all their family members will be shoved into the J. Edgar Hoover FBI headquarters tower, the doors closed, and the building gassed and set afire. This was the LORD's preferred means of dealing with government criminals from the time of Abimelech's dealings with the men of Shechem to how Jehu dealt with Ahab's soldiery and king's men. Is the questioner more moral than God?

In any case, before McVeigh is to be executed the government criminals at Ruby Ridge and Waco must be tried. When government criminals are found guilty by a Resistance tribunal, let them be disposed of in a manner their surviving victims feel is just.


A PEOPLE STRUGGLING FOR FREEDOM against the rule of domestic criminals and despots needs heroes and martyrs. The day Timothy McVeigh was found guilty and condemned was the day the current social order condemned itself to death. Let us in the Resistance carry out the sentence in our own good time.

--Editor Martin Lindstedt .


A Whirlwind of Vengeance

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
               Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
     Distributed on: 03-JUN-97, 19:12:26
Original Written by:


   As you know, the trial in Denver merely concerned itself with
the guilt or innocence of McVeigh.  The trial did, however, establish
the critical connection between cause and effect.

Here is an excerpt from a press release:

McVeigh Conviction Points Finger at Justice Department

Alanson, Mi  (Jun 2) - Norman Olson, Commander of the Northern Michigan 
Regional Militia, said today in a press release that he is not surprised 
by the McVeigh verdict, but says that by winning its case, the 
government confesses its own culpability in the bombing that killed 168 
   Olson makes the following statement:
"This isn't about McVeigh. He is merely a symptom of a greater problem 
that infects America and threatens to destroy her. Let's get beyond the 
talk of conspiracy. Let's talk about revenge--blood for blood--cause and 
   What was the bombing in OKC and what triggered Timothy McVeigh? The 
government prosecutors proved that it was an act of retaliation in 
response to the unpunished abuses of power witnessed at Waco. By 
convicting McVeigh, the government has condemned itself by proving that 
McVeigh, in his own demented, twisted and extreme way, balanced the 
scales of justice in the way that he thought best.  What the government 
has done is to prove the cause and effect connection between the 
barbarity of Waco and the barbarity of OKC, thereby indicting Janet Reno, 
the ATF, and the FBI as the indirect cause of the bombing. Although they 
did not set the fuse, they just as surely started the wheels turning that 
resulted in the death of 168 people.  In short, if the federal murderers 
at Waco and Janet Reno would have paid for their crimes, the bombing in 
Oklahoma City would not have happened. 
   When I testified before the US Senate, I was mocked by Senator Arlen 
Specter because I said I understood what Timothy McVeigh allegedly did. I 
declared, 'If justice is removed from the equation, the ancient dynamic 
of retribution, retaliation, and revenge will take its natural course.'  
Arlen Specter and the American people could not conceive that I 
understood why McVeigh did what he did. It's about time they learn!  God 
help us if another Waco takes place for it will start the wheels turning 
again.  If Timothy McVeigh is executed, let it be known that all those at 
Waco, together with Timothy McVeigh and 168 other people died for Janet 
Reno's sins. We have sown justice to the winds and are now reaping the 

End Press Release

  May I add as an afterthought that the LA Riots were an act of 
retaliation for the injustice of freeing brutal policemen after the 
Rodney King incident.  Afterward, the social engineers rushed to 
California NOT to rebuild the city, but to rebuild the police 
  If we miss the indirect cause (which is the true cause) of the 
"trigger" that set Timothy McVeigh off, we must include the incidents 
at Ruby Ridge and Waco where justice was denied.   

  The frightening thing is that other "Timothy McVeighs" are lurking
in America.  What incident will drive them beyond the limits of their
own moral restraints?   The positive thought is that IF the government
makes the cause-effect relationship, it will avoid further Waco and
Ruby Ridge events, knowing that it will trigger another McVeigh, and
this time perhaps with a biological or chemical weapon where thousands

   I intend to place maximum focus on the cause-and-effect connection
showing the McVeigh in his own way did what the courts did not do.
There needs to be no values placed in such a logical argument.  Just
making people think that the Government's abuse of power has brought
pain and suffering to hundreds.

   Perhaps if McVeigh confesses and demands to be executed, taking full
responsibility for the deed, he will become a martyr and a tragic
page in America's history where one man took very personally the
deaths at Waco and Ruby Ridge.   

   God help us if others are so affected.

Kind Regards,

Norm Olson



Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 09:27:34 -0700 
Subject: Oklahoma City -- Denver -- Is it over?

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
               Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
     Distributed on: 15-JUN-97, 09:26:12
Original Written by: IN:Gary Hunt --

Oklahoma City -- Denver -- Is it over?
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 15, 1997
Ever since April 19, 1995, there has been a tendency to disbelieve what
should be recognized as obvious. For the two years prior to the bombing
in Oklahoma City, patriots around the country had sought, proclaimed and
threatened revenge for the murder of those families in Waco, Texas. What
finally occurred paled in comparison to some of the 'claims' of what
would come. But, when reality came, there was an immediate, knee-jerk
reaction which was totally unanticipated by people whose hearts were
truly in the battle against government.

CBS, NBC, CNN, et al, had, for those two years, decided who would be the
militia/patriot spokesmen. Just think about it, the stature that many
rose to was a direct result of them saying what the press wanted to
hear. They were then embraced by the Constitutionalist community as the
avatars of things to come. But, why would WE listen to the words so
carefully selected by the establishment press -- the press we recognize 
of being nearly incapable of presenting a proper picture of what is

After the bombing, new faces appeared in the press. Out of Michigan came
the advocates of change, by any means -- but, those advocates
back-paddled quickly when a cause they might have advocated, in words,
came to fruition. From around the country, patriots, who have blamed the
murder of innocents on the government, over and over, felt compelled (by
these faces, courtesy of NBC) to yell, "hang them that did it!" The
target in Oklahoma City, however, was far more a military target than
the majority of the buildings bombed by the very same government as they
conducted their (our?) slash and burn tactics in Iraq, just a few years

Once McVeigh was identified as the probable bomber, a sense of guilt by
association compelled his exclusion from the ranks; a man who had made
manifest the trumpeted words of retribution that had so recently echoed
across the land. McVeigh became an outcast among those he had listened
to since he sat at T-shirt Hill, contemplating the actions of the
government against a church and its congregation. McVeigh, like so very
few others, went to Waco during those fifty-one days of unbelief. Unlike
the thousands who refused to commit to the opposition of government
actions, he found the means to make a journey which, I'm sure, he did
not know where it would end.

Those few who did make the journey, not later as a camera toting
tourist, but during the siege when the stakes were high, recognized
something that the others will never fully understand. Those who, from
around the country, gathered in Waco, contemplated, more than once, what
could be done to stop this travesty. Through the eyes of many that I met
there, the solution was to take arms, yet the hope that a peaceful
solution forever stilled that reaction -- until April 19th.

In hindsight, I wish that I had chosen another course. The means were
there, but the illusive hope that those inside would come out alive and
that justice would prevail, exonerating Koresh and putting the actions
of the BATF on trial, bound us to a hopeful course.

Think, if you will, of what your feeling would have been, had you been
in Waco, and failed to act -- resulting in the murder of men, women and
children. Is it possible that one's life could change as a result of his
inaction, when action might have proved more fruitful than his inaction?
Is it possible that a sense of guilt over that inaction might induce one
to step ahead of others in recognition of what we all claim to recognize
as becoming a reality in the very near future? 

Those of you who profess to know that we are turning into a police
state, and will be ruled by the New World Order, and its 'peacekeeping'
forces, have not witnessed, first hand, the imposition of the military
state on your fellow citizens. You can only project its happening, but
you refuse to acknowledge the reality of is existence. Pity you your
naiveté. Pity you your blindness. Pity you your insecurity of
conviction. Pity you.

Making McVeigh your sacrificial lamb, to appease your sense of political
correctness, serves only you, not the cause you profess. Obfuscating
McVeigh's beliefs behind claims of patsy, dupe, agent or other such 
terms serves only to restrict the progression that is so absolutely
necessary if we are to resurrect Constitutional government in this
country. Do you really believe that the cause will be achieved by
resistance to the last man -- one man at a time? Or, will it be achieved
by aggression, which is the only means of achievement to such an end
that history has ever recorded?

McVeigh did what McVeigh had to do. McVeigh, now, will suffer a
criminal's death instead of the death of a soldier, as he should. George
Washington ordered the hanging of a British officer, an old friend,
because he was caught as a spy. An honorable death would have been by
firing squad. Washington made clear that the act of spying most be
rewarded by the dishonor of a criminal's death. You, by your actions,
allow not a spy, but a more courageous man than yourself, to be
dishonored by a criminal's death.

Why has it come to this? Because one of our own has been taken prisoner
of war, yet we refuse to declare the existence of that war. We wallow,
instead, in the deception that we create for ourselves. Can the battle
not be fought until the last man is willing to join it? Or, should we,
like those from Concord, join the battle when the cry is given? The cry,
my friends, has been given, over and over and over.

In Vietnam, the self-imposed obligation that "everyone goes home" did
not, necessarily, mean alive. It did, however, mean that none would be
left in the hands of the enemy. In this regard, our record is dismal.
EVERY body has been left in the hands of the enemy. And, each of us
wipes his hands clean, turns his back, and walks away, righteously
proclaiming, "he ain't one of us." Ah! The bliss of ignorance.

Those of you who, in your hearts, believe that what you have advocated,
professed and believed these past few years will come to reality should
acknowledge what you profess. The rest of you should heed the words of
Sam Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us
in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

But, if you truly wish to restore what is your birthright, then
recognize that the divisive means which are being used against us -- have
caused this division. Hold your voice, if one should act not exactly in
accord with your mind. Heed the words of the Maryland Resolve of 1774
(and, read it very, very carefully):
"Resolved unanimously, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the
gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and
only stable security of a free government, and that such militia will
relieve our mother country from any expense in our protection and
defense; will obviate the pretense of a necessity for taxing us on that
account, and render it unnecessary to keep any standing army (ever
dangerous to liberty) in this province. And therefore, it is recommended
to such of the said inhabitants of this province as are from sixteen to
fifty years of age, to form themselves into companies of sixty-eight men
[three or four]; to choose a captain, two lieutenants, an ensign, four
sergeants, four corporals, and one drummer for each company; and use
their utmost endeavors to make themselves masters of the military
exercise. That each man be provided with a good firelock and bayonet
fitted thereon, half a pound of powder, two pounds of lead, and a
cartouch box, or powder horn and bag for ball, and be in readiness to
act on any emergency.
"Resolved unanimously, that it is recommended to the several colonies
and provinces to enter into such or the like resolutions, for mutual
defense and protection, as are entered into by this province. As our
opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave
America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this
province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences
about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of
every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and
we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and
his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and
OutPost of Freedom mail list
with your desire in the  box.
Gary Hunt -
Outpost of Freedom,  moderator
Visit the Outpost of Freedom homepage



Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:17:44 -0700 
Subject: Re: Oklahoma City Denver Is it over?

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
               Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
     Distributed on: 15-JUN-97, 22:16:52
Original Written by: IN:Norm Olson --

Re: Your paper on McVeigh and how he is viewed.


   Allow me to attempt to restrain your emotional impulse to
condemn me (veiled, but I think I know who you're talking about).

   McVeigh with calculation and design chose his target. He, in 
a well-trained soldier's way, determined the time and the position
for maximum affect.   He carried out his plan with Rembrandt-like

   But.....and here's where I differ with you and the crowd you are
writing to....he targeted women and children, noncombatants.  This,
in spite of many other more desireable targets.

   Had McV set the fuse 3 hours earlier, he would have made his 
statement.  Ka-bloom, down goes the Murrah building...lives lost? None. 
Had he targeted a FBI or ATF complex, or set a mine under a van filled 
with federal soldiers posing as agents, he would have been commended.

   Gary, I think you're wrong.  Believe me.  Honor requires that this 
war be fought cleanly by our side if we expect history to remember what
we did well and for a holy purpose.   Gary, it wasn't women and children
who burned out the Branch Dividians at Mt. Carmel, but federal soldiers.
McV did not turn his sights against soldiers, but against noncombatants.
That is wrong!   If McV were under my command, I could not condone
what he did.  If he were a soldier in my command, acting independently,
against honorable rules of engagement, to take the lives of women
and children, I would see to it that he would be tried and convicted.
As the Army condemned William Cally years ago, so McV must be be
convicted.  But in Cally's situation, it was his own Army that
tried him.  What would have happened if the Vietnamese people had
tried him?  Are we to the point where we will excuse criminal conduct
in war?

    "Well, civilians die in war" you might want to say...  True, but
there is a big difference between an act of war and an atrocity.
When soldiers have the full control of the situation and can choose 
their target at their convenience, they have within their power the
ability to act honorably.  For example, taking prisoners and herding
them into a barn to be burnt is not an act of honor...neither is 
exploding a bomb outside a nursery without giving a warning to 

     McVeigh was in control.  He had the power to act according to
proper and honorable rules of war.  He had the power to target the
very soldiers who launched the attack at Waco, but instead he  chose
to target women and children--non combatants.

     Yes, this is war, Gary.  But what McV did, he did KNOWING that
it would be a war crime.  

     If we are going to be anything, allow history to remember that
we are honorable men!   Grant us that Gary.   If we act otherwise,
and target the women and children rather than having the courage to
face the combat soldiers of the FBI and ATF, what does that reveal
about us?   Are we any less the barbarians than those who burned the
women and children at Waco?  

     Gary, I am disappointed at the posting below.  In an effort
to justify McVeigh, it seems that you justify what he did.  Could
we agree that we MUST not target women and children when more select
targets are available?   Could we agree to act with honor?   Could
we agree that bombing the Murrah building at 9:02 was a indecent

     Yes, this is war, but I want history to record that our cause
was more honorable and righteous than theirs.  Our men and women more
ethical and noble than theirs.  Our purpose and goal higher than
theirs... and above all,   that our place in history ought to be
remembered NOT at merciless barbarians, but as those who stood for
principles and ideals and yes, where the end does NOT justify the

     When I stood before the FBI soldiers in Montana, I pointed
directly at them and condemned them to death by warning them of
national reprisal.  "You, the young 'braves' the soldiers will
be killed!," I declared.   Killing is easy...a bomb in a department
store, a nerve agent in a water supply, a bomb on a bus...but 
facing the right enemy on the right ground is exceedingly more
difficult because it takes courage and honor and integrity!

     If you are going to tell the story to your readership. Please
explain the other side of the issue and the way that history will
be read.   

    Perhaps we are so convinced we are right that we no longer
question what we do....   If that is the case, then we have become
the enemy for we are no different than they.

Kind Regards,

Norm Olson



Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:08:38 -0700 
Subject: What did McVeigh target?

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
               Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
     Distributed on: 15-JUN-97, 23:07:12
Original Written by:

The issue of the "target" of McVeigh's bomb being brought up, perhaps 
an older post might provide some food for thought:

May 11, 1995
Terrorism? or, An Act of War?
Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom

   Dresden, Germany, February, 1945, A series of allied bombing 
raids resulted in virtual firestorms, nearly destroying this city, 
which dated from the early 13th century, along with many of its 
centuries old architectural landmarks. One hundred thirty-five 
thousand people, the vast majority being women and children, died 
during these raids.  August, 1945, Hiroshima, Japan, three-fifths 
of the city destroyed, along with 75,000 people, mostly women and 
children.  Just a few days later, another atomic bomb was dropped on 
Nagasaki, destroying half the city and killing another 75,000 people, 
again, mostly women and children. These three events killed 285,000 
people, yet they were acts of war, and were intended to end World 
War II.

   During the "Vietnam War," Haiphong, the major North Vietnamese 
city, was bombed over and over, and in 1972 the harbor was mined.  
Much of the city was destroyed and tens of thousands lost their 
lives.  There was, however, no "declaration of war" to justify 
these acts, yet we perceive them to be Acts of War.

   April 15, 1986, in a strategic operation, naval air forces 
attacked military targets in Tripoli Libya. One of those targets was 
the home of Muammar Qaddafi. Hundreds were killed, yet no 
"declaration of war" had existed between the United States and 

   December 20, 1989, United States forces, under the operational name
"Just Cause" (?) invaded Panama with the purported purpose of arresting
Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking and money laundering charges.
Hundreds died, and significant damage to the capital of Panama resulted.
After trial, in December, 1992, the federal judge from Miami ruled that
Noriega was a "prisoner of war."

   On January 15, 1991, unified (?) forces from 31 nations began a new
form of warfare (without declaration) against Iraq. For five weeks smart
missiles and smart bombs were directed against, the capital Baghdad.
Smart bombs were able to enter ventilation stacks of bomb shelters,
killing women and children without destroying the shelter. Cruise
missiles traveled hundreds of miles to explode close to their targets,
killing tens of thousands of civilians in this new game of attrition.
Never, however, a treaty of peace, for there was never a "declaration of

   These acts are not considered to be acts of "terrorism", for they
occurred during the course of a war. It is quite clear that during a
war, acts which might otherwise be considered below the dignity of man
can occur and be excepted as a consequence of war. If there is a war 
and thousands die, those deaths are written off as a consequence of 
war. Even without the accepted norm of a declaration, war can be waged
against innocent civilians with no effort made for discrimination of

   Since the "declaration of war" has become an unnecessary act, perhaps
we can find a way of determining when a war exists by other means. In
the Academic American Encyclopedia, under "court", we find that, "Courts
fulfill three important functions: (1) they resolve disputes that, while
often routine, are crucial to those involved; (2) they provide
protection from illegal actions by government and individuals; and (3)
occasionally, they resolve disputes of great political and social
significance." Clearly, then under a normal circumstance, "protection
from illegal acts by government" should leave the government open to be
punished by the court. It might then be said that if government can
commit illegal acts, with impunity, that a state of war exists. No
judicial process will hold the victors to task. Justice must be set
aside during time of war, which is clearly affirmed in the Constitution
(Article I, Section 9, clause 2, dealing with Habeas Corpus, and,
Article V, Bill of Rights, dealing with exemption from Grand Jury
process). So, perhaps, war (since declarations have become a thing of
the past) can best be determined by the fact that no trials are held to
determine justice, or injustice, for the deaths that are a consequence
of hostile action. How else, in this modern age, can the determination
be made that a war even existed?

   This being the case, perhaps we should look around and see if there
are other wars going on, perhaps at this very moment. Maybe we should
start back in August, 1992. Hostilities broke out and, in the first
incident, two "men" were killed. Hostilities ceased for a few days, but,
then, another act of senseless murder occurred when Vicki Weaver stood
in her doorway and was killed by a single "sniper's" bullet. Well, this
was clearly not a war since a trial was held. Unfortunately, even though
three people were killed, none were found guilty. This, then, must be a
war, because war crimes trials were held, but the heinous offender could
not be identified.

   Just a few months later, another war began. This war lasted 51 days
and the subsequent war crimes trials were held almost a year later. We
know that this was a war because 9 people were found guilty of killing
(or other related acts of complicity) four men who were dressed and
equipped as soldiers.

   Now, the "enemy soldiers" killed in these two incidents had some
common ideologies, and they had other ideologies that were at opposite
ends of the spectrum. That, however, was true from World War II to
Operation Desert Storm. It is the side that you take that determines
which side you are on during a war. We can determine which side each
side was on in these last two incidents by looking at a couple of
factors. First was the uniform. One side chose black military uniforms,
complete with web gear, automatic rifles, tanks, helicopters, grenades
and other modern implements of the game of war. The other side wore
normal clothes - jeans, dresses, sneakers, etc., and used simple, legal
weapons. They also sought refuge in their home and place of worship. 
The final indicator is that they fired only in self-defense. Surely, 
these were of the same side in this most recent war.  And, it must be 
war, since even the commanding general at the Justice Department in
Washington, D.C. never described the acts of the enemy as terrorism.

   On April 22, 1993, I left Waco, after 47 days, to return to Florida.
I remember that I was somewhat dumbfounded by the events of April 19,
and until I returned to Waco, in mid May, had not been able to sort out
certain thoughts. When I returned to Waco, and finally stood on the
concrete that was once the floor of the Mt. Carmel church, I looked
around and saw partially burned remnants of utensils, clothes, books,
letters and toys, indicative of the lives once lived, and since, lost
here. I recalled similar situations in Vietnam, and realized, finally,
that there was a state of war here in the United States of America. I
realized that I was at war with the United States Government, but, 
that the war that I was in was still a "cold war". Not so for those 
who died in those ashes, but for many, a state of war had begun.

   Then comes another group of soldiers. Jeans, slacks, driving cars and
trucks, not tanks, and counter these previous (self-)defensive acts of
war with an act that is a bit more offensive, but no more so than the
initial acts the two battles just mentioned. Now, however, we hear the
battle cry come up from the side that wears the black uniforms,
"Terrorism," they yell, over and over again. "Terrorism, it's unfair,
and they killed women and children. Terrorism, there is no other word
for it."

   The battle cry is taken up by many leaders who were on the side of
the homespun folk. Many, who just a few years before, cried out that the
surprise attacks by the Black uniformed soldiers were acts of war, now
cry terrorism along with their enemies of the recent past. "Condemn
them," they yell. "Hang them after a quick and speedy trial. They are
not warriors, they are cowards. Hang them, be done with them". The cry
comes out from ail those leaders who professed, so recently, to be on
the side of the homespun patriots.

   Meanwhile, many who, just a few years before, had taken the battle
cry of "Do whatever is necessary to end this mess," are now questioning
the fairness of the actions of the black uniforms, and beginning to
understand why the poorly equipped soldiers of the other side have
resorted to an act that cost 167 lives.

   Perhaps it might be best to dispel the association of "baby killer"
with the act that occurred in Oklahoma City. Since the sixties, the
construction of federal buildings has been an "anti-terrorist" design.
Since the bombing of Flight 103, we have been advised that federal
buildings are potential targets of such bombings. As we learned from
Waco, keeping your children in a location that has danger associated
with it leaves the responsibility on the parent, not the aggressor. In
fact, I never knew that there were day care centers in federal
buildings. I would have supposed, prior to April 19, that the government
had enough concern for the children to locate this type of facility in
leased space away from what was known to be a potential target.

   The determination of what constitutes an act of terrorism has to he
with each of us, individually. It cannot be left to a government that
controls the weapons of war, the streets and the language to make that
determination for us, for, if we are to allow this to happen, the stigma
that will be placed on any act, whether it be killing four BATF agents
assaulting a church in Texas, or a U. S. Marshall who has just been
involved in the killing of a dog, and the murder of a fourteen year old
boy, or bombing a federal building where people who choose to be
"employees" of the government that has run amuck, there will never be a
favorable light put on our actions, unless, and until, we prevail. This
leaves us, then, with the question --

   Was this an Act of Terrorism? or, an Act of War?

OutPost of Freedom mail list
with your desire in the  box.
Gary Hunt -
Outpost of Freedom,  moderator
Visit the Outpost of Freedom homepage



What is the basis for the McVeigh Verdict?


© 1997 KEVIN McGEHEE (Editor of "The Armed Genius")
North Pole, Alaska

Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or 
broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making 
publications must have *express consent* to reprint any FTW materials. 
Thank you.


I know I shouldn't be trusting the Big Media reports about the McVeigh
trial, but what reports I saw emphasized the occasions on which the
government brought people in to testify about what a horrible thing 
the Oklahoma City bombing was.

The first time I saw one of these reports, I found myself wondering 
whether I had somehow slept through the guilt phase -- had they already 
convicted McVeigh and moved on to the penalty phase, where this kind of 
testimony would be appropriate?  But no.  The jury was still trying to 
determine whether the man the feds had arrested for the bombing was, in 
fact, the culprit.  And the federal prosecutors seemed determined to 
prevent the jurors from coming to a rational decision.

So now that the verdict is in, and McVeigh waits to find out whether 
the government he allegedly hates will put him to death, I'm left 
wondering whether the jurors convicted McVeigh because the evidence 
proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or for some other reason 
associated with all that emotional testimony.

When did the heinousness of a crime become material evidence of the 
guilt of a defendant on trial? When did the severity of damage and loss 
of life become a fact relevant to whether a given person committed that 
crime?  Had the building collapsed in a different fashion, would that 
somehow have exonerated McVeigh?  If the survivors and witnesses had 
reacted with less horror, or perhaps more, would the feds have had to 
release this man and look for someone else?  What's the connection?

Why did the judge permit these plays to emotion to distract the jurors 
in his courtroom from the life-or-death question of whether the man 
sitting before them actually did it?

The State of Oklahoma, from what I hear, plans to try McVeigh themselves
under state law.  That'll make two trials he'll be put through.  If his
lawyers are worth the air they breathe, they'll increase that to three 
by challenging the conduct of the federal trial.

June 2, 1997


The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do 
not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be
affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so.

"The Armed Genius" is the pro-freedom bimonthly newsletter for the 
thinking citizen.




© 1997 KEVIN McGEHEE (Editor of "The Armed Genius")
North Pole, Alaska

Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or 
broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making 
publications must have *express consent* to reprint any FTW materials. 
Thank you.


On June 2nd I sent out an essay discussing the McVeigh verdict, and 
asking how sure we could be that emotion didn't figure in it.

On June 16, in the *Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,* there is a *New York
Times* article profiling one juror who, it is claimed, organized the
deliberations so as to ensure that emotion didn't overwhelm fact as 
the jury reached a verdict.

I appreciate the *Times'* reassurance. I'd also like to know where I 
can buy some of the soap Timothy McVeigh must have used between 
fleeing the bombing scene and being arrested such a short time later. 
This soap -- whatever brand it is -- must be something else, because 
it removed every single trace of bomb residue from the culprit's 
person.  I use a pretty good brand of soap myself, but even it has a 
hard time with plain old axle grease -- which isn't even incriminating.

I'm also curious about the invisible gloves McVeigh must have worn when 
he rented that Ryder truck -- there were no fingerprints identifiable 
as his on the rental agreement, yet no one who was present when he 
signed the agreement ever mentioned seeing gloves on his hands. Clearly 
such gloves could only be useful to criminals, so why isn't there a 
hue and cry to identify the technology behind them, and ban it forever?

Timothy McVeigh has to be the most dangerous criminal genius of our 
time. He should be trussed up like Hannibal Lecter so our criminologists 
can learn what makes him tick, and use that knowledge to foil other 
such diabolical masterminds.

June 16, 1997


The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do 
not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may 
be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so.

"The Armed Genius" is the pro-freedom bimonthly newsletter for the 
thinking citizen.




© 1997 KEVIN McGEHEE (Editor of "The Armed Genius")
North Pole, Alaska

Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or 
broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making 
publications must have *express consent* to reprint any FTW materials.
Thank you.


Timothy McVeigh isn't Julius or Ethel Rosenberg. Nor is he Alger Hiss 
or Lee Harvey Oswald. But until all the questions left unanswered by 
his trial (or raised by it) are answered satisfactorily, there will be 
people in this country who will look upon him as one of these notorious 
icons of alleged injustice.

I was two months shy of my second birthday when John F. Kennedy was
assassinated. As I grew up I learned about the event, and was left 
with questions about certain aspects of it that didn't seem to make 
sense. As a result, by the time I was in high school I was convinced 
that there was a second gunman.

It wasn't until fairly recently that a columnist in a gun magazine 
offered insights that have at least satisfied me that Lee Harvey 
Oswald *could* have acted alone.

The unanswered questions about the Oklahoma City bombing that bother 
me are these:

Were all of the positive identifications introduced by the prosecution,
naming Timothy McVeigh as the man who rented the Ryder truck that 
exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah building, obtained *before* 
McVeigh was paraded before TV cameras as "the bomber"? This is a valid 
question because the infamy of the crime means such ID's obtained 
*after* the media event would have to be regarded, by a reasonable 
person, as tainted.

What other physical evidence, if any, links Timothy McVeigh to the 
bombing? (I've discussed a reputed lack of fingerprints on material 
evidence, and the lack of bomb residue on his person.)

It may be that the answers to these questions will only raise more
questions. That remains to be seen. They *might* put to rest whatever
doubts I may yet have.

Other people have other questions about the bombing, centering around 
the second John Doe, or reports that the BATF agents were out of the 
building when the bomb went off, or an assessment -- by a reputed 
authority on such matters -- that the damage to the Murrah building is 
inconsistent with a single ANFO device.  Some people still focus on the 
reports, during the panic of the immediate aftermath, that there were 
still unexploded bombs inside the ruined building.

I wouldn't mind seeing those questions addressed either, if only to 
dismiss once and for all the theories that underlie them.

But it would be a shame if it took thirty years for me to finally 
conclude that, yes, justice was done to Timothy McVeigh, and that, 
yes, his victims can rest.

June 17, 1997


The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do 
not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may 
be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so.

"The Armed Genius" is the pro-freedom bimonthly newsletter for the 
thinking citizen.



Wish She Was A Juror

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:42:36 -0700 
Subject: Re: Justice for Oklahoma! Justice for America?

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: Opf (Outpost Of Freedom)
               Type: Moderated by Opf (Outpost of Freedom)
     Distributed on: 08-JUN-97, 14:41:34
Original Written by:

I say, without apology to anyone, God bless Tim McVeigh.



Defining Ourselves on the News Front -- Post Timothy McVeigh

MSNBC correspondent Alan Boyle has been interviewing so-called "experts" of the militia movement and some "militia leaders." In the interests of setting the record straight, as I see it, I put my two cents in, and now am asked questions by Mr. Boyle from time to time.

This benefits both parties. Mr. Boyle has access to differences of militia policy and we have a chance to escape pronouncements from "militia experts" such as Dr. Mark Pitcavage and Morris Dees operating freely in a news vaccuum. After all, either we choose to define ourselve or be defined by our enemies. This is a strategic political warfare policy which we dare not shirk.

So far, in the self-interests of Mr. Boyle and myself, the communications have been going well. Mr. Boyle has acted honorably in getting the different messages out from our side. He has followed professional ethics in letting us define ourselves, and in our own words.

Norm Olson, the Grand Old Man of the open militia movement, had the following e-mail message to say concerning Timothy McVeigh's punishment:

                  Four arguments in favor of execution

 Militia leader
 says McVeigh
 should ‘face
 death as a man’ 


         Norm Olson, commander of the Northern
        Michigan Regional Militia and one of the nation’s most
        outspoken militia leaders, sent this e-mail message
        outlining his views on whether Timothy McVeigh should
        face the death penalty in light of his conviction for the
        Oklahoma City bombing.

                       Yes, he must be executed.
Defendant and trial earn
militias’ scorn 

        1. Justice demands that he should be executed. The
        American people must demand justice in this situation.
        There can be no lessening of the severity of McVeigh’s
        crime. The prosecution has proved its case and the defense
        is now admitting that McVeigh did it, but that there were
        mitigating circumstances that pushed him to his act. There
        has been NO denial from McVeigh.
         2. Duty demands that McVeigh accept the
         consequences. As a soldier, McVeigh knows the cost of
         any operation involving risk. He was cold and calculating.
         He realized that he would very likely be caught. He wore no
         disguise. He KNEW that capital murder would bring death.
         . . he must accept the full measure now just as certainly as
         he would have accepted his death in a shootout within hours
         after the bombing IF he were surrounded.
         3. Honor demands that McVeigh now DEMAND the
         very justice he claimed is missing from the American Justice
         System. The very message in McVeigh’s action, that is, that
         justice is nowhere to be found, is the message that now
         condemns him. He cannot deny that for which he acted. He
         must accept death, yea demand it, to be honorable to
         4. Dignity demands that McVeigh face death as a man.
         I cannot accept that Timothy McVeigh will have to be
         dragged kicking and screaming to the gallows. He must
         stand and announce to the world what he has done and
         declare WHY he did it. He must make himself clear and
         expect the consequences of his choice. 



My 15 Seconds of Fame

      Net users debate the meaning of death

Will McVeigh’s
sentence send
message or
create martyr? 

By Alan Boyle 

          From America to Australia, networkers used online
       votes, chats and message boards to express their reaction
       to a jury’s decision that convicted Oklahoma City bomber
       Timothy McVeigh should die.
          In quantitative terms, the results generally supported
       the decision: More than three-quarters of those surveyed in
       an MSNBC Live Vote sided with the jury. (About 3,500
       people had taken the survey as of 10 p.m. ET.)
           But qualitatively, a great debate raged in online chat
       rooms and newsgroups. 

           Some felt that death by lethal injection was too good
       for McVeigh.
           "They should strap him in a Ryder truck filled with
       fertilizer and put him in the desert with a 30-minute fuse so
       he can think about what it will be like to be blown apart,"
       said one participant in an MSNBC chat.
           Another participant, hailing from Australia, felt the use
       of the death penalty was a black mark against American
           "This just seems as though all you people want to do is
       show you’re so very much better than Tim McVeigh by
       being able to kill him," the Australian said. "No wonder
       your country is so screwed."

                           MCVEIGH A MARTYR?
Militia expert Dan Levitas
says McVeigh will be
considered by some to be a
Do you agree with the jury's
  MSNBC News Bulletin Board

Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy 
Newsgroup: misc.activism.militia 

The Patriot Coalition 
The Militia Watchdog 
Klanwatch and Militia Task Force 

          The fact that McVeigh was convicted for one of the
      country’s most costly acts of domestic terrorism added an
      additional dimension to the death penalty debate: Would
      McVeigh’s death turn him into a martyr for the right-wing
      struggle against the federal government?
          During chats and in newsgroups, some Internet users
      voiced fears that such would be the case.
          "From what I understand, he did not allow his lawyers
      to apologize on his behalf and he has made no attempt to
      show remorse," an MSNBC chat participant said. "Now he
      goes out in a blaze of glory, the hero to others who think
      like him. He would have become a forgotten criminal of the
      past if he spent the next 50 or 60 years in prison with no
      chance of getting out."
          Others, however, downplayed the martyr complex.
      "To deprive Timothy McVeigh of his life by lethal
      injection is not an act of violence," read one posting on
      MSNBC’s news bulletin board. "It does not perpetuate the
      ‘cycle of violence begun at Ruby Ridge.’ It ends it. It
      finalizes the psychotic existence of a social misfit who spent
      his post-service years looking for some other conflict in
      which to get involved."
                         VIEWS FROM THE RIGHT

          Militia supporters were divided as well on the effect of
      the death penalty decision. Relatively established groups,
      such as the Michigan Militia Corps and the Militia of
      Montana, have distanced themselves from McVeigh and
      say the Oklahoma City bombing has hurt their image.
          Norm Olson, commander of the Northern Michigan
      Regional Militia, said McVeigh "committed a heinous war
      crime" and must die for that crime.
          But in an e-mail message sent to MSNBC after the
      verdict was announced, Olson also noted that McVeigh’s
      actions were prompted by the deaths of more than 80
      members of the Branch Davidian sect in 1993 during a
      confrontation with federal agents near Waco, Texas.
         The federal government says the Waco victims died in
      a fire set by the group’s leaders, but right-wing militants
      such as Olson blame their deaths on the government.
         Olson said McVeigh "did what he did in response to
      the failure of justice following the Waco tragedy. He took
      on the specter of an avenging soldier in his own war."
         Martin Lindstedt, who manages the "Patriot Coalition"
      Web site and an Internet newsletter for militia supporters,
      said he believes the verdict and the prospect of the death
      penalty will drive some elements of the militia movement
      further underground. 
‘The ones
who go
will be even
The Patriot Coalition 

         "The ones who go undercover will be even more
      militant, thus beyond the control of anyone," he said in an
      e-mail message. "Therefore a disaster, probably involving
      biological weapons, will probably take place within the next
      two years."
         In Lindstedt’s view, McVeigh has provided a role
      model for those who believe in the doctrine of "leaderless
      resistance" -- under which small, autonomous cells execute
      guerrilla actions without taking orders from a central group.
         Lindstedt said he expected the Internet to play an
      increasing role in getting out the message of the militia
      movement. "It was the Internet which made the Militia
      Movement roar," he wrote.
         However, he said, "the deep cells will not use any
      communication because they will be so small and
      security-conscious that such use will be deemed
      unnecessary and dangerous." 



My Original Letter

To: "Boyle, Alan" (alan.boyle@MSNBC.COM)
From: Martin Lindstedt (
Subject: Re: Views on OKC Trial
CC: Beam -- Louis, Olson -- Norman
Date: 4:03, 6/11/97

At 12:27 PM 6/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>OK... we're gearing up for an article on militia movement perspectives
>on the trial and sentencing options. So actually I'm hoping you'll be
>able to respond today... You can call me at 206-XXX-XXXX just for a
>The focus of the story would be:
>From your perspective, what has the reaction been to the trial, and what
>sorts of outcomes do you expect from the penalty phase? What do you
>expect would be the effect of a death sentence vs. life in prison? Would
>it mobilize further resistance to the government, would it force militia
>supporters further underground, or would it have little impact on the
>profile of militias in America?

   My perspective will be in the minority as it comes from the younger,
more aggressive members of the Resistance.

  I predicted the verdict of the trial as being guilty. I will predict 
that the penalty will be death. These are government jurors and they 
have been selected for their willingness to use the death penalty.

  I think that the effect of a death sentence will allow the government 
to put Timothy McVeigh to the front of the line for death. As long as 
McVeigh lives he is a threat to the government, as he can always say 
that he was sent to do the dirty work.
  Paradoxically, McVeigh can still use the section 4 of the Geneva 
Convention to claim Prisoner of War status and therefore exempt 
from criminal prosecution. Such was McVeigh's initial claim two 
years ago and I doubt he has forgotten it.

  This verdict will drive the underground militias even deeper 
under cover. And the ones who go under cover will be even more 
militant, thus beyond the control of ANYONE.  Therefore a disaster, 
probably involving biological weapons will probably take place 
within the next two years.  Like the OKC bombing, the question 
will remain as to who released this biological warfare -- a 
small militia cell or the government. For all we know, this 
biological warfare may be taking place right now.
   The open militias will stay the same, but they are losing 
membership and this trend will accelerate as a country afraid to 
attack the real government culprits will instead take out their 
fear and hatred on the open militia leaders and membership.

>How do you and your colleagues view McVeigh: as a patsy, an outsider, a
>martyr, a screw-up?

   As all four.  The militia generals were quick to portray McVeigh as 
an outsider. For the benefit of propaganda and because we believe it 
as well, all the Resistance is claiming that McVeigh is a Manchurian 
Oswald.  McVeigh was a screw-up because he got caught with a lost 
vehicle tag and openly carrying a pistol. And the Resistance will 
make of him a martyr for reasons both political and moral.

   Right now I get a lot of e-mail but the positions are hardening. 
One woman wrote: "I say, without apology to anyone, God bless Tim 
McVeigh." I will have to change her name to protect her identity in 
the next issue of "The Modern Militiaman's Internet Gazette."

   But think of it.  Three years ago Timothy McVeigh set out to do 
something about Waco.  He set up a team to do something and even 
though his "cell" was infiltrated and sent on his way by the 
government, still, while a lot of us were thinking about doing 
something about Waco, McVeigh did something about it. 
This very same building was allegedly targeted by seditionists in 
the mid-80's but it wasn't destroyed then.  Unlike the 
government informants and the rest of his cell, McVeigh hasn't 
cracked, begged for mercy, or run his mouth.  Therefore McVeigh is 
the perfect natural leader of a Resistance cell.  Any Resistance 
leader running a vengence operation would find Timothy McVeigh a 
perfect cell leader.
   There is a lot of depth to Timothy McVeigh, and this depth is 
sensed by all the on-lookers.  The trial of Terry Nichols will not 
be as sensational, because he does not have the granite moral 
courage of a Timothy McVeigh. If during the allocution, McVeigh 
stands up and admits his guilt but claims the government was 
involved, McVeigh can destroy the government and make a Clause 4 
Geneva Convention claim to being a POW in a civil war.

   I think McVeigh wanted to be caught.

>What are your thoughts on how the trial has been portrayed to the
>American people? 

   I call it "The Show Trial of the Manchurian Oswald."  Whatever the 
government wants, the government judge, a former U.S. prosecutor lets 
them have. 
   There is not a single public figure who dares say anything other 
than that Timothy McVeigh should be executed for mass-murder. The 
cowardice and ignorance on public display matches any man-on-the- 
street interview in Nazi Germany in 1942 as to what should be done 
about the Jews or in Pravda in the 30's as to what should be done 
about the counter-revolutionaries Kamenev, Zinovev, Trotski, and 

   But I listen closely for the pulse of the common man who is 
able to think for himself and I am encouraged because they know 
something is wrong. They know the government is guilty. But like 
the German trapped in Nazi Germany or the kulak trapped in Soviet 
Russia, they dare not -- thus they cannot -- do anything about 
their beliefs.

>How do you view the role of the Internet in publicizing
>the trial and the issues it has raised? 

   It allows us to bypass the mainstream media. I tell everyone to 
ditch the TV set and to unleash their power on the Internet with the 
aid of a $400 computer.

>How well-used is the Internet in communications among groups or 
>in publicizing the message of militia groups? 

   It is the number one medium in publicising the message of every 
social group.  It allows every man to be a publisher of political 
or creative material. It is a Gutenburg machine for every man. 

   Unlike all the old mediums, however, it allows the most intelligent 
or creative individuals the most power, far above any groupings of 
other men.  What will be heard will be the voice of the most intelligent 
individual because he can crush utterly the writings of any committee. 
Can you imagine Mark Twain running for office writing on the 
deficiencies of his opponent?  How would the opponent respond?  With a 
press release written by a bunch of PR flacks?  Thus Mark Twain could 
utterly crush any one of his political opponents. Intelligence on the 
Internet is not additive nor collective. 
   I have found out much the same thing.  The Internet allows what I 
call moneyless political campaigning.  Your average politician cannot 
handle an Internet-savvy political opponent.  Negative political 
advertising and grudge pages could be churned out for free.  The 
possibilities are endless, limited only by a person's intelligence.

   In addition the audience on the Internet is different than that 
which watches TV.  They are smarter, younger, rebellious, and libertarian 
oriented -- no friends of big government because they will wind up with 
the bills. 

   Most of the militiamen are not very good at running a WWW page. 
So they use the Internet for e-mail and have turned in their fax 
machines.  One character spams over a thousand people on his 
e-mail list of conspiracy theories. I got over 20 messages, some 
from England, concerning my recent article.

   It was the Internet which made the Militia Movement roar.

   As far as communications are concerned, soon I shall write and 
publish how to use PGP encryptation and the use of dummy e-mail 
addresses in how to conduct surveillance on e-mail listservers.

  However the deep cells will not use any communication because they 
will be so small and security conscious that such use will be deemed 
unnecessary and dangerous.
>So there you have it... I'm also trying to get in touch with John
>Trochmann and Norm Olson ... any other thoughts or suggestions would be

   Trochmann and Olson are of a different generation than myself and 
much of the Resistance cells. I have been in contact with Norm Olson 
several times. I don't know Trochmann personally.

   Here is a suggestion. If you want to get a view from the Christian 
Identity/White Nationalist militia movements, why not interview 
"Mr. Leaderless Resistance" himself -- Louis Beam?  It would not hurt 
to ask as all he can say is "no."  He might very well say "yes" in order 
to grind his own axe.  His e-mail address is at 

--Martin Lindstedt
>Best, Alan



"Constitutional Militias no Threat" sez Federal Butchers Incorporated Head GubbnmintGunGoon


Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 14:10:03 -0300
From: Richard Finke 
To: "" 
Subject: L&J: FBI Director speaks straight?

   On CSPAN II the FBI Director, Louis Freeh buried the hatchet against
militias while testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism
June 4 ,1997.  "We've worked very hard to try to evaluate and analyze
the activity (of the militias).  Most of the militia organizations
throughout the country are not, in our view, threatening or dangerous."
Mr. Freeh went on to explain that the instances with the Republic of
Texas, the Freemen, and OKC were not representative of what the county
sheriffs around the nation were feeding back to the FBI concerning 
miltia behavour and activities.  He continued saying that what was a 
concern was that "A biological attack is imminent."
   If the idea of a biological attack is dusturbing to you, and it 
should well be, but you don't know anything about how to deal with 
that probable eventuality look up


See? Most of them militia generals and their 'Constitutional militias' are absolutely harmless, even to their federal informants. After three years of doing absolutely nothing except whine about the loss of their 'constitutional rights' and letting their more militant brothers go to jail, even the Feds have figgred out most of them are all talk. Even Morris Sleeze and Dr. Markkk Pitcavage are now saying that these open militia generals are generally harmless. (Of course these things are not said during prime time on their WWW pages. Gotta keep them greenbacks coming in from the liberal nitwits, abortion-mills, and the lavender set.)

The second thing to note is that the Head Butchercrat has now set up Freeh's Biologicals Inc. in prime market position to pull another Oklahoma City operation using another one of their product lines and trained installation technicians real soon. Yep, they'll dispose of the surplus population of the major cities and blame it on the militia, foreign terrorists, Saddam Hussein, Area 51 aliens, Iraq, the Internet, radio talk show hosts, Louis Farrakhan, rogue government elements, etc., etc., in roughly that order.

Market tip from the MMIG: Invest heavily in canned foods and shotgun shells and avoid urban real estate, especially in NYC and D.C.



Infiltration? Or Idiocy?

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:27:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SAFAN NO. 480.  Planted Disinformation from Right Wingers

       S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 480,  June 2, 1997

by Michael W. Masters (

Don't know if you've seen this posting   (Intel briefing on the state 
of infiltration and provocation).    

   It appears to be from a "right-winger" who is warning of the 
dangers of "racialists."  My suspicion is that this is deliberately 
planted disinformation designed to fragment the right wing and 
make everyone suspicious of each other.  Not that there aren't 
infiltrators; there are.  But the people accused here are the very 
last people who would turn on real patriots.

   Apparently someone agrees with me because whoever forwarded 
this message didn't take too kindly to the original posting either.

   Don't know what you think of all this, but you might want to 
consider posting a warning about those who try to destroy our 
movement by breaking it down into feuding factions.  We are few 
enough as it is, and we don't need to be demonizing the very 
people that the left attacks most vociferously.  The left has a 
saying:  "No enemies on the left".  If we can't say something good 
about a group, we can at least keep silent.  We would be wise to 
understand the wisdom of not committing fratricide.

 Michael W. Masters
HERE IS THE POSTING (in case you didn't get it).
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:30:26 -0800
From: Jon Roland  (
Subject: Fw: Intel briefing on the state of infiltration and provocation. 
References: <> 

Subject: Intel briefing on the state of infiltration and provocation.
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:05:31 EDT

   You may forward this to those that might be helpful.

  After review of all available data regarding the threat of provocation
and infiltration of our movement, some alarming items stand out.....

   Over the past 3 years, most if not all incidents involving federal or
state intervention into militia affairs, individuals that express a
"faith" in racialist ideas have been the catalysis for crack downs and 
arrest.     These individuals, it seems, have a tendency to be paid 
informants or professional troublemakers/provocateurs. 

   During the past 3 years there have been an increasing number of
 "racialist" law enforcement officers making the news. For example,
 Pennsylvania has had an enormous number of these types.  Then 
 there is the "Good Ol' Boys Roundup", where we saw a combination 
 of federal, state, and local officers engaged in the most demeaning 
 of acts.

   With the evidence available at this time, we have been able to draw 
a direct connection to various law enforcement and "racialist" 
parties.  Remember that those that are infiltrating seem to be 
connected to a "racialist front".

   After interviews with several well known and respected 
 Constitutional Militia leaders, it has become apparent that these 
 forces are attempting to infiltrate, instigate and dominate our 
 organizations. As it stands now, most have been unsuccessful. We 
 see this as a threat to the movement as a whole. If these radicals 
 gain entry to or control of units, their destruction is guaranteed.

   Now comes the kicker. Out of nowhere an older group of malcontents 
have emerged on the scene. The National Association for the 
Advancement of White People. Under the direction of Ret. Col. Dan 
Danials and "Pres." Paul Allen, there seems to be a new coalition of 
"racialist" organizations coming together.

   As of yet we have not received any hard evidence to support this 
idea. But the circumstantial evidence is getting harder to refute. To 
date there are several aligned organizations that seem to be working 
on a single front. These include the following:

Aryan Nations
Aryan Brotherhood
Aryan Republican Army (those that are not already in jail)
Knights of the Invisible Impire of the Ku Klux Klan
White Aryan Resistance
The Order
The New Order
American Nazi Party
National Socialist Party of America
National Alliance
Phenious Priesthood
The Sigma Foundation
The Children of Hitler
Posse Comitatus
The Arm and Sword of the Lord

   As you might have guessed, this is an extremely violent and 
ruthless gathering. If the information that is coming out is correct, 
these groups are poised to undermine everything that we are for 
and will not stop until they have achieved their goal, which is of 
course, the American Reich. 

   Stay alert, stay alive, We didn't get them all 50 years ago, but 
their time will come.


Maj. Smith
  NOTICE:  Please read SAFAN NO. 481 and 482 very carefully.  
I think perhaps that the "disinformation" is very widespread.  Can any 
of us be fooled by these people?   Of course.  Is this our fault?  No!!  
   I was told recently that there are really only two kinds of people 
today, regardless of party or what they call themselves.  One is a 
Nationalist - who wants to protect America's freedoms and to preserve 
the Constitution and its "concepts".  The other one is a Globalist - and 
these are the people who are trying to win over all of us to their 
cause.  By destroying our government the Globalists can win.  In other    
words, we must not throw out the baby with the bath water.  A
real Constitutionalist is one who vows to protect the Constitution of
1776 (78?) and not the "new" Constitution.  You have to watch this
word - because it does not necessarily mean "the" Constitution" as
we know it..... Dot Bibee]

                                   ( o   o )
     "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  Thomas Jefferson
  SAFAN % Dot Bibee  (  Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011
  SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on   



Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SAFAN NO. 481.  Show where "Racialists" Were Involved!!

    S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 481,  June 2, 1997

      by Joseph Pothier (

[ED. NOTE:  This answer was posted on the Misc.Activism.Militia 
Newsgroup in response to the Message:  Intel briefing on the State 
of Infiltration and Provocation, posted by Jon Roland - See SAFAN 
NO. 480]

   In a word: crap!

   Why do you even use the term "racialist?" These people are racists 
pure and simple.

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of Mr. Starr 
and the Militia at Large of the Republic of Georgia?

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of the Viper

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of the 
Washington State Militia?

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of the 
West Virginia Mountaineer Militia?

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of the Ron 
Cole and his mini-militia, the First Colorado Light Infantry? 

   Show where any "racialists" were involved in the arrests of the 
"California Five?"

   I think I've left off a few militia busts, but I've made the point. 

   [Jon Roland wrote]:  "During the past 3 years there have been an 
increasing number of "racialist" law enforcement officers making 
the news. For example, Pennsylvania has had an enormous number 
of these types."

   Care to be specific?

   [Jon Roland  wrote] "Then there is the "Good Ol' Boys Roundup", 
where we saw a combination of federal, state, and local officers 
engaged in the most demeaning of acts."
   Actually, no federal officers were involved, and only a few state and 
local LEOs were. Not all the LEOs who attended the "Roundup" were 
racists. There is also considerable evidence that Jeff Randall, who 
has since severed his ties with the militias, rigged the "nigger 
checkpoint," etc.  

   [Jon Roland wrote]  "With the evidence available at this time, we 
have been able to draw a direct connection to various law enforce-
ment and "racialist" parties.  Remember that those that are infiltrating 
seem to be connected to a "racialist front".

   Again, you have yet to present any credible evidence that "racialist" 
LEOs are behind recent militia busts.

   [Jon Roland wrote]  "After interviews with several well known and 
respected Constitutional Militia leaders, it has become apparent that 
these forces are attempting to infiltrate, instigate and dominate our 
organizations. As it stands now, most have been unsuccessful. We see 
this as a threat to the movement as a whole. If these radicals gain 
entry to or control of units, their destruction is guaranteed."
   Now just wait a minute! "Racialists" trying to take over the militias!!! 
How Shocking!! I suppose that neither you nor your "well known and   
respected Constitutional Militia leaders" [note quotes] have never 
heard of the Estes Park, Colorado, meeting of October 1992. At that 
meeting 150 of some of the most racist people in this country--- 
Richard Butler of Aryan Nation, Louis Beam of Aryan Nations, Pete 
Peters of Aryan Nations and Christian Identity, 'Bo' Gritz of the racist 
People's Party and Christian Identity, just to mention a few--- got 
together with some of the most right-wing people in this country--- 
like Larry Pratt, and gave birth to the militia movement. The racists 
were, simply put, midwives to your entire movement! And now, you 
think they are trying to take it over--- my, my!

   [Jon Roland wrote]  "Now comes the kicker. Out of nowhere an older 
group of malcontents have emerged on the scene. The National 
Association for the Advancement of White People. Under the direction 
of Ret. Col. Dan Danials and "Pres." Paul Allen, there seems to be a 
new coalition of "racialist" organizations coming together."
   Well what do you expect. These people, after all, are your 'kissin 

               NOTE:  Now read SAFAN 482!!!

                                 ( o   o )
     "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  Thomas Jefferson
   SAFAN %Dot Bibee  (  Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011
   SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on   



The Resistance movement is an interconnected network of militia barons who know or know of each differing chieftain or warlord very well. This is to be expected in a Resistance movement of very strong competing warlords striving to advance his/her variant of right-wing or Christian ideology. The natural leadership of the Resistance is shifting and jockeying for advantage before the home stretch of what sort of civilization will be founded upon the ruins of the old one, and how best to tear down the current decaying structure. Right now the argumentation is between reform of the current order as opposed to allowing and hastening this current regimes' absolute collapse.

Michael W. Masters publishes, edits, and writes one of the best Southern Nationalist WWW pages in existence. However, his wish that all members of the Resistance community speak kindly to each other on all occasions is not going to happen. There are profound differences between the open public 'Constitutional militias' and the new/old 'leaderless resistance' Nationalist Resistance. These differences can not be glossed over, because they involve divergent thought processes.

The White Nationalist movement has been engaged in struggle against the federal government in reaction to the changes occurring in the South for the past 30 years. In most cases, they look upon themselves as great-grandchildren of the Confederate soldiers who rebelled against Federal aggression. They are natural enemies of what they see as something even worse than Federal aggression -- a global government they call the New World Order.

Learning from the lessons they have been taught in their struggle, they now advocate the breaking down of the Resistance into cells -- the policy of "leaderless resistance." They have had problems with informants and traitors within their midst, and have had to form countermeasures against it. Having been engaged in the struggle longer than the open 'Constitutional militias,' they have neither a will to compromise with an evil government nor a wish to infiltrate what they view as a bunch of fools and government sneaks. Therefore, contrary to Jon Roland's worryings or Major Smith's "Intel" warnings, the likes of Louis Beam, White Nationalists, or Christian Identity have no intention of using the suburban open militias, (some of whom openly have the PC policy of appointing Jews and blacks to positions of authority) as anything other than a collection of useful idiots or sometime fellow travellers.

They will not shoot at or openly deride some idiot militia general in his BDUs and PX finery screaming absurdities on a soapbox in front of the TV cameras. These natural-born Social Darwinists think that the infestation of federal informants in open militia groups and these informants' filthy habits of from time to time sending off the militia generals to government housing is a good thing -- it improves the breed. Joining their patiently formed Resistance cells to an open 'Constitutional militia' group is in their eyes the same as giving away their white daughters in marriage to a black man. It just isn't done. This is why there was no attempt nor will there ever be an attempt by any White Nationalist/Christian Identity Resistance cell to 'take over' some militia general's command. Mr. Pothier, looking at the objective data and not knowing the parties involved, was absolutely correct. It is the open 'Constitutional militias' and their own militia generals' foolishness which have done them in.

So is Jon Roland a NWO infiltrator as Safan 482 might suggest? This Editor doesn't think so. Rather Mr. Roland is still living in a past of three years ago. The open militias had to be formed and they still have a function as a political counterweight. Their season as a Resistance vanguard peaked, then left, a year, eighteen months ago. Mr. Roland and Major Smith are in large part irrelevant today. But let us give credit where credit is due while we forge on ahead. It is an act of criminal malice or incompetence for a member of the Resistance to accuse someone of being a government agent absent proof.

Editor Martin Lindstedt


Copyright 1997. Modern Militiaman Internet Gazette



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