American Partisan: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told

NC Scout over at American Partisan has an interesting article up titled Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told, explaining more about Khashoggi’s (spy?) background and how it may have contributed to his recent demise.

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told

On 2 OCT 2018, Washington Post journalist and middle eastern political activist Jamal Khashoggi went missing after entering the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Some in the course of the last news cycle has alleged this to be a much deeper incident than it appears on the surface; a vanished journalist, murder, international intrigue, a Saudi administration in conflict with Turkey; both jockeying for power in a region bound for widespread war in the coming years. Over a year post-living in exile after being banned from the Kingdom of al Saud, Khashoggi returned to the assumed security of the nation of his familial ancestry while continuing a career of revolutionary praxis through media in the mideast region. Needing a legal certificate of divorce from the Saudi government, Khashoggi felt safe approaching the embassy- in and out, no harm, no foul.

How wrong he was.

Embassies and consulates are nerve centers for declared spooks of a nation. Formal intelligence officers working in a nation must be declared. Journalists, on the other hand, can get placed into positions of unique access and are often conduits for sensitive information. In any country where intelligence operations are being run (and that’s all of them) a nation’s embassy serves as the hot spot for intelligence and in turn, counterintelligence. With Khashoggi, we find an example of split loyalty divided between revolutionary Marxism and a convenient ally found in the politics of revolutionary Islam. Possibly best examining this juxtaposition is his quote from a WaPo piece in late August:

The United States’ aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is more apparent in the current Trump administration, is the root of a predicament across the entire Arab world. The eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing less than an abolition of democracy and a guarantee that Arabs will continue living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes. In turn, this will mean the continuation of the causes behind revolution, extremism and refugees — all of which have affected the security of Europe and the rest of the world. Terrorism and the refugee crisis have changed the political mood in the West and brought the extreme right to prominence there.

He goes on:

There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it. A significant number of citizens in any given Arab country will give their vote to Islamic political parties if some form of democracy is allowed. It seems clear then that the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political representatives.

There are efforts here in Washington, encouraged by some Arab states that do not support freedom and democracy, to persuade Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If they succeed, the designation will weaken the fragile steps toward democracy and political reform that have already been curbed in the Arab world.

The point made by that last paragraph is critical. “Freedom and Democracy” is a common phrase touted by Marxian-inspired revolutionaries. And Islamist revolutionaries are exactly that. Thriving in the swamp of Washington DC, Khashoggi no doubt not only found himself among willing peers but cheerleaders among the Deep State apparatchik, with those ties neither recent nor random. His tale is one of deep alliances with what we now know of as the Deep State, made of the Marxist-inspired and academia-groomed bureaucracies of the Washington elite. The Muslim Brotherhood to which he refers is the revolutionary party of Egypt, spearheading the so-called “Arab Spring” which plunged the stable nation into chaos and directly endangered the control of the Suez Canal, keeping fuel prices affordable, in the hands of Islamists. Mohammed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, found a quite inviting home in the White House and among the leftist administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Wasting no time eliminating political rivals and religious minorities, most notably Coptic Christians, the Egyptian Army stepped in to remove the leftist cancer that had been installed as a proxy of the Obama administration…

Click here to read the entire story at American Partisan.

American Partisan: Medical Care When the Lights Go Out

An American Partisan staff member who is a surgeon has written Who’s On Call: Medical Care When the Lights Go Out about the basics

…We tend to think of collapse scenarios as abrupt, but through history they have often occurred in slow motion. One could argue that our health care system is already in a state of partial, ongoing collapse, especially since 2009. Anyone currently working in that sector knows it, as from a boots-on-the-ground, practical standpoint the PPACA may have actually reduced effective access to care and utilization and has engendered a rather unique set of patient and provider survival skills for the prevailing medical landscape that share commonality with the grid down world. The most important of those are mental, emotional and psychological. Long wait times, restricted access to providers, high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, third-party bureaucracy, system consolidation (i.e Aetna + CVS) and increasing use of non-physician providers (not a denigration of them, so please no hate mail, I love my NP) are all potential barriers to care that have parallels in the austere environment. Developing skills for self-care and outright avoidance of the system are increasingly necessary, as things are inexorably getting worse, and it’s not just domestic. The Gray Lady just outlined slo-mo collapse of health care in China.

Primacy of basic, mundane grid-down issues such as water purification, sanitation and disinfection cannot be understated. They are the three most important areas to address; dismiss them at your peril. Grid-down medicine, like all things military and surgical, is mostly boring and even mind-numbing. It’s not all sexy trauma stuff. Most of that will leave you dead. While the products of human violence will most certainly be faced, failure to provide clean water, properly address latrinage, and keep wounds clean will kill many more than bullets and bombs. Monsoon rains after the Haiti earthquake led to a cholera outbreak (traced to Nepalese relief workers) that killed thousands. Dysentery is a big inflictor of suffering and death after disasters. Modern trauma care is very complex, needful of extensive resources and still can not prevent all death. In a grid-down world, my specialty will likely be reduced to Civil War-era skillsets: draining pus and amputation…

Click here to read the entire article at American Partisan.

American Partisan: Lawful Resistance

Bryce Sharper at American Partisan has written Case Studies in Lawful Resistance I in which he gives a brief synopsis of the doctrine of magistrates and its relation to lawful resistance, and also gives an example of lawful resistance from Illinois.

The state of Illinois is collapsing financially.  It owes its vendors in excess of $10 billion and has no money to pay its pension obligations.  Foolish state elected officials are floating every scheme under the sun to avoid the inevitable: declaring bankruptcy.  People are moving out in every direction.  The thing is, Illinois is a lot like California: there are a lot of decent, God-fearing people there.  Illinois is really the territory of the corrupt city-sanctuary-state of Chicago.  I have wondered for a long time why the rest of the state doesn’t secede or at least stop obeying Chicago.  I have to wonder no longer.  Second Amendment activists in the state have begun the basic process of resistance by creating sanctuary cities for gun owners.

Without gun sanctuary resolutions, these new state laws could take guns away from owners who need them: after all, people who believe in emergency preparedness and survival often purchase guns for protection. The sanctuary gun resolution is to protect homesteaders and those who believe in emergency preparedness from losing their second amendment rights.

It’s easy to understand how county officials feel the need to place the state on notice about restricting gun rights. These new Illinois laws could restrict someone who has a criminal record or history of violence, even if it was years and years ago, from owning a gun. They could have turned over a new leaf entirely and now want a gun simply for home protection or hunting, but the new laws would make that very difficult. It isn’t right to place a blanket ban on people because of some offense without looking at the circumstances surrounding the charge.

The article goes on to allude to the fact that these gun sanctuary city laws might not hold up to state law.  IT DOESN’T MATTER.  City leaders are perfectly justified in defying state law to allow their citizens to protect themselves.  The main duty of magistrates is to protect their citizens.  The state of Illinois sees its main duty as thievery and oppression…

For more about the doctrine of magistrates, you can read Theodore Beza’s De jure magistratuum
(On the Rights of Magistrates) at Constitution.org.

There is also a book by Matthew Trewhella titled The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates. You can read a review of it here at The New American. The review covers the basics of the doctrine in more detail than Sharper’s brief summary, but in a more digestible format that Beza’s longer piece.

American Partisan: Deception Detection

From Kit Perez at American Partisan comes this article 3 Principles That Will Help You See Deception Right Now, briefly laying out some instructions for detecting untruth in statements.

With all the ruckus about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the accusations against him, it’s being driven home once again that deception detection is a critical skill. When it comes to your groups and activities, it could end up being the difference between security and infiltration.

Analyzing people’s written or verbal statements for deception is a learned and perishable skill. As you get better at it, the principles get more advanced. Eventually you can construct a profile of the person, identifying far more than whether they are being deceptive. You’ll be able to see their core motivators, their agendas, and more. This gives you the ability to see past what their goals are, and thwart or pervert those goals.

There are many principles behind this type of analysis. To get started, however, we’ll just look at three basic ones, and we’ll use a sentence from Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford as our example.

As with any analysis, we will start with the belief that she is telling the truth. When I sit down to begin analyzing a statement or constructing a profile, I start with the assumption that I am looking at truthful words from a truthful person. If my assessment changes, it is based upon their own words. They’ll need to talk me out of believing them. So let’s get started.

Principle 1: People mean what they say.

Speech in someone’s native language is so ingrained that it is beyond second nature; it’s instinct. Speech conveys visceral concepts like possession; even the smallest of toddlers understands the idea of “mine.”

The free editing process is where someone is given the chance, space, time, and freedom to relay information using their own words to convey what they want conveyed. They choose the words, they choose the concepts, they choose what they tell you. That means, you can trust that what they tell you is what they meant to tell you.

That doesn’t mean they’re telling you the whole truth. You see, most deception is done by omission, not fabrication. Find the information that’s being left out, and you’ll find the sensitive information that changes the scope of the bigger picture.

The good news is that people telegraph the information they’re trying so hard to keep out. As people, we can’t help it. The brain knows what it knows, and leaving information out (or fabricating it) causes internal stress that the brain will try to avoid…

Click here to read the entire article at American Partisan.

American Partisan: Defense Against Tyrants

A new author, Bryce Sharper, over at American Partisan has written an introductory post titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (Defense Against Tyrants) where he says that he will be writing about moral and mental aspects of resistance in order to achieve victories on the spiritual level.

…What about our families?  Almost every philosopher of every faith or tradition has agreed that the family is the basic building block of civilization.  If ours are coming apart, how will we have the support we need to play IRL Call of Duty come The Revolution?  How can we preserve our way of life if we’re failing to raise our kids?  How will our local prepper group respect us, if our wives don’t?  How can we cooperate on greater levels if we can’t cooperate on a family level?

These are questions I intend to explore in upcoming articles.  As a leading-edge Millennial who was raised by diligent parents who brought me to church and are still married, I still feel like I’ve had to learn everything from scratch.  We have lost all our traditions [L. traditio = hand down] and so no knowledge is being handed down to the next generation and our civilization is dying.  Since this website is a “vanguard movement of Western civilization,” let us begin with ourselves and practice the small-but-important things in the hopes they will lead to greater things.

Will Durant said that civilizations begin in stoicism and end in epicureanism.  We see the latter every day, complete with public orgies found in ancient Rome.  Can our destruction be far behind our decadence?  We may not be able to preserve the United States.  In fact, I think it is near its end.  We can recover our traditions and preserve our way of life, or at least try.  How?  I’ve become convinced that the United States began with good Americans.  In one sense, there were never golden years to look back on because “former days were not better than these” (Ecc 7:10).   However, even secular historians such as Durant and many of our Founding Fathers agreed that civilizations die in licentiousness.  Civilizations follow an arc of birth, life, and death and most indicators point to our death.  If this is the case, we should look forward to rebuilding and we can start with ourselves…

Click here to read the entire article at American Partisan.

RELATED:

Beauty Beyond Bones: Drowning in Indifference – a thoughtful article from a brave young woman in New York City about the difficulty of trying to make a difference against the opposing freight train when you feel like a feather.

We are all just sitting back and letting this all happen.

Just like my response to the PP [Planned Parenthood] canvassers today.

No one is willing to stand up and take the unpopular opinion that, Hey, this is wrong. This needs to stop. We need a change…

When are we going to push the pause button and at least ask the question of: What is the implication of all this?

But the even more important, and sobering question, is, How am I contributing to what our world has become? 

Sure, my heart and mind say one thing, but do my actions shout, “Indifferent?!”

And that is a hard question. Because we are to live in this world, but not be “of” this world. And further to that, what can we do? Really? 

It is a discouraging conversation to have with oneself. How do you stop a freight train with a feather?

American Partisan: The Myth of Intelligence, Part I

Kit Perez has started a new intelligence series over at American Partisan. The first installment is The Myth of Intelligence, Part 1: Planning and Direction. In part one, she explains the difference between information and intelligence and explains the intelligence cycle.

What is intelligence? Answering that question is slightly more difficult than you might think. You’ll often hear the word used in regard to information of all types, and from all kinds of sources. You’ll see the term tossed around in social media groups, at rallies, and in various patriot groups. People talk about “intel,” but what they really mean is “information.” People often believe that raw information is intelligence — and that’s a pretty pervasive myth. Information is NOT intelligence, and if you don’t know the difference, you’re cutting yourself and your group short.

The distinction between information and intelligence isn’t semantics, and it’s not a small thing. In fact, some people use the word “intelligence” to cover their hunches, gut feelings, and even gossip they’ve heard about someone or some situation. To put it bluntly, gossip is not intel, and information means nothing until it is converted to intelligence. Knowing a piece of data doesn’t do you any good unless that information is processed INTO intelligence. If you know something, it’s not intelligence unless you can do something with it; it needs to be actionable. And no, passing it on to someone else is not considered action.

The Intelligence Cycle

The point of intelligence is to set up a stage for action. Information answers questions like Where, When, How, Why, or What, but intelligence does so with a view for what you should do next. It’s not enough to know something; you need to know what to do with it. That’s where the intelligence process comes into play.

The parts of the intelligence cycle are as follows:

Click here to read the entire article.

Family and Friends Who Don’t Prepare

Kit Perez has been written a short article titled The Dilemma of Family and Friends Who Don’t Prep over at American Partisan about how you might need to react to people asking for food in the event of a severe crisis. In an event like a civil war (which 31% of US voters believe is likely in the next five years), those people in need may be more desperate than you have imagined.

In the time that I’ve been prepping, I’ve talked to a lot of friends and family about the need for them to prep too. I’ve gotten varying answers in this conversation, but the one answer I hear more than anything is, “I’ll just come to your house if something happens.” It’s always said with a laugh, as though it’s such a hilarious, original joke, and I’ve read many folks who advocate answering that with a resounding “No, you won’t.”

On one hand, this sounds greedy and rude–or at least, you’re told that it does. How can the person who claims to want to build local communities and work together with neighbors not be willing to share in hard times, when your little nephews are starving or the family next door doesn’t have any more water and no hope of getting any? Some may say that there’s a moral and ethical obligation to help others regardless of situation. Others I’ve talked to say that they’ll give the people at the door two days’ rations and tell them that’s it. Still others say they’ll help children but no one else.

The problem is that they’re still thinking in terms of normal, civilized society, and the social mores that people generally abide by–and trying to apply them in a brutal, life-or-death situation where there are no rules and no limits.

In order to understand the real situation you’d be faced with, you need to read Selco’s work, in which he describes in great detail the mindset changes that occur in a societal breakdown. Think about what happens when an area is faced with a major storm, or prolonged power outages. People swarm the stores, scrambling for supplies before they’re gone. Looting and theft, even assaults and worse occur as a matter of course.

Let’s take a look at some of the potential situations. Let’s assume you have a family of four people plus one dog. You’ve saved a few hundred dollars in silver, and you’ve got three months of food and water saved up…

Click here to read the entire story at American Partisan.

Near Vertical Incidence Skywave (NVIS) Simplified

NC Scout has a new article up at American Partisan about NVIS radio communications. If you were confused by some of the terms used in our Suggested Radio Equipment for Community Security article, this has some additional explanation of line of sight and beyond line of sight communication as well as, of course, NVIS which was briefly mentioned in that article.

HF radio wave propagation can be shot nearly straight into the Ionosphere, hence the name Near Vertical Incidence. What goes up, must come down. Knowing that all things have equal and opposite reactions, the angle coming down is also nearly vertical. Then it goes back up, and down again, and over and over. Like this:

near
Near Vertical Propagation

And it gives you a range Beyond Line of Sight, at the tactical level, like this (minus the TACSAT in the photo):

i-global-net-basecov,base,cs,csrange,op,nvis,legend
Tactical Coverage of NVIS Comms

With a regional picture looking something like this (which goes along with Planning your Footprint) pictured below.

Washington DC
Regional Coverage Using NVIS

So what does this give us? We now have Beyond Line of Sight Communications that do not rely upon repeaters. Once operators are decently trained and have a good amount of time working in this method under their belt, it can be very reliable.

Important to note is that not all HF bands work well for this. Generally speaking, 160-40M work best due to the way the frequencies themselves refract off the ionosphere. Experience as a Radio Operator should tell you when to use which band based on noise level, the amount of heard traffic, and beacon propagation near your operating frequency will give you a good idea if your traffic will be successfully transmitted or not.

Click here to read the article in its entirety at American Partisan.

 

RELATED:

Near Vertical Incidence Skywave Communication: Theory, Techniques, and Validation by Fiedler and Farmer (pdf)

American Partisan: Realistic Redundancy

JC Dodge of Mason Dixon Tactical has a brief article up at American Partisan entitled Realistic Redundancy: Prioritization and Selection about the gear for which you should have a spare.

It was a dark and stormy winter night in Northern Iraq. My patrol had just been ambushed by bad guys, and we had casualties. Guess what “Patrol Leader”, you’ve got to call in the 9-line, ASAP! I hurry up and fill it out with a grease pencil, and start to relay the info to higher via radio. Guess what? While reading off line three, my headlamp died. “WHAT THE HELL DO I DO NOW!” is the first thought, which is immediately replaced with “Wait, I have a clip light in my front gear pocket.” I get it out, clip it to my helmet band, and am able to continue transmitting. Why am I telling you this? I bring up this example to point out why redundancy in certain areas of your gear is CRITICAL, and how you might want to prioritize what should have redundancy.

Nine line

When people in the Civilian Survivalist/LEO/Mil arena think about redundancy, it’s usually tied to the phrase “Two is one, one is none.” There’s a lot to be said for that mindset, but taken to the extreme, it will do nothing but add extra crap (that you don’t need readily available), and probably slow you down in the process, due to the extra weight it adds to your gear. Whether you are a Civilian, LEO, NPT (Neighborhood Protection Team) member, or member of the Military, understanding the need for redundancy in you essential gear, and how to prioritize it is essential to giving yourself the best chance at survival in a non-permissive environment. First we will talk about prioritization of gear that needs redundancy, then we will talk about a method to use when looking for redundant gear options.

How do you prioritize what needs redundancy? Here’s the questions I ask myself to make my decisions. 1) If I lose use of the item while in the middle of using it, could it drastically alter my chances of surviving? 2) Is the item of such importance in my line gear (1st on person, 2nd is load bearing gear, 3rd is your ruck), that not having it alters my chances of success and/or mission accomplishment? “Mission accomplishment” being different things to different people. An example of this for Survivalists would be surviving a life and death situation, whether it is natural or man made. For the LEO or legally armed civilian, it could be an “Active shooter” situation. For an NPT (Neighborhood Protection Team) member, it might be conducting operations in your AO after your area has devolved into TEOTWAWKISTAN, whether those operations are purely defensive, or what I call “Aggressive Defense”. 3) Is the weight of the redundant item that is added to my gear offset (less important than) by the importance of that item?

Let’s discuss them in order,

1) If I lose use of the item while in the middle of using it, could it drastically alter my chances of surviving? As I illustrated in the first paragraph, having that extra light (same type, a hands free design) was critical to mission success, which at that time was callin’ in the status of some of my patrol’s wounded soldiers.

2) Is the item of such importance in my line gear, that not having it alter my chances of success in mission accomplishment? Due to the “priorities of work” being done at the time, It would have been “less than optimal” to pull one of my other soldiers off of their assigned task, just to hold a light for me.

3) Is the weight of the redundant item that is added to my gear offset (less important than) by the importance of that item? In the case of the hands free light HELL YEAH! Those clip lights from a number of vendors are very small, lightweight, and can be tucked almost anywhere for a future need. The only downside is their proprietary type of small watch battery (my normal headlamp uses AA, along with almost all my electronic gear, except for a few 123’s).

Things that I think are good candidates for redundancy…

Read the entire article by clicking here.