Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

[Gary Hunt]

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Gary Hunt,

Outpost of Freedom

September 13, 1998

 

NOTE: This interview was conducted over 16 years ago, and times have changed. It must be read in conjunction with "To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop", which will put a perspective of on this article, based upon circumstances today.

* * * * *

I had a conversation with a friend the other day.  It turned into a hypothetical scenario, and I decided that it might make a good interview.  John agreed.  So, what you are about to read is a scenario developed around what COULD have happened in Germany in the mid to late thirties, when some of the German people first began to suspect that Hitler's Reich was a little bit different than what it was set out to be.  Only portions of the interview are included.

 

OPF: John, how are you, today?

JOHN: Fine Gary, and ready to go.

OPF: Okay, John, why don't you lay out the basis for the scenario, first.

JOHN: Okay, it is 1938 and some of the people have begun to realize that the government has continued to expand its power, increase its revenue from the people, and imprison those who defy the rules established in this progression of what amounts to a submission to slavery.  Now, when I speak of people, I intend that to mean only those who have begun to understand the existence of the problem.  The rest of the people I will refer to as "the rest of the people".  The scene, however, is not very much different than the conditions that currently exist in America, except that America has not chosen a scapegoat race to direct negative emotions at.  America has selected a portion of the people to direct their negative emotions.  But, that is not the story line, so, back to Germany.

* * *

OPF: So, suppose the people of Germany wanted to protect their country from what was, apparently, a step in the wrong direction?

JOHN: Well, I think it was more than apparent.  Work forces of citizens, paid from the common treasury, were put to work with shovels, building the Autobahn, and other public works projects.  Having been denied the right to build an Army after World War I, the government realized that they could build an army with shovels, and then replace the shovels with rifles.  Close quarter drills, maneuvers, bivouac, the workforce practiced every type of military function.  Nobody did anything about it.  Most realized that the workforce was training to be an army.  Once trained, and given the guns, the government had a police force sufficient to control all of the people.  Of course, the local officials were brought in as a part of the military force, and took their orders from the central government, enforcing whatever laws the government passed.  It was at this time that the people should have acted.  The prosperity for the few who were willing to submit to the government, and enforce their laws, at the expense of the rest of the people, placed them in a position of power.  This power was abused, in many cases, but the rest of the people took it, without question -- or, at least, not aloud.  This, though, would have been the time to strike.  Many people still had their rifles and some may have had explosives.  Heavy equipment had not been developed for smaller jobs, and so it was not uncommon for farmers and others to have explosives.  Had they used these explosives on the government force, random hits by small groups, they would have had an effect.

OPF: You mean that they should have killed the soldiers and the police?

JOHN: Had they killed soldiers and police, in random acts, they would have created more than what was then just a reward scenario for the soldiers and the police.  They were acting with impunity, and were fed and paid better than the average worker.

OPF: That would have been dangerous.  Wouldn't they most likely get caught and executed?

JOHN: Many were killed, anyway.  Most, eventually, as soldiers in war.  Others that resisted were captured and imprisoned, many to die in prison.  I suppose that the difference is whether you want to die fighting, or just die.  I believe that some of the Germans that I met years ago really regretted what they allowed to have happened.  I think that they would have, had they thought that it would get as bad as it did, done something about it.

OPF: Well, what would be the desired result, had they done these random acts of killing?

JOHN: Probably.  Most importantly, is that they would have created fear within the government.  Kind of like when the Oklahoma City bomb went off.  I remember that you had written an article (Escalation & Fear: Fear & Escalation) about how the government had reacted to the bombing.  They were scared.  From what I have read, very few of those who were in the building have been willing to go back to work for the government.  Then, others, like Bob Ricks, from Waco, retired shortly afterwards.

OPF: You mean, the idea of killing people would have been to get them to quit their jobs?

JOHN: That would be fair to say.  You know that burglar alarms are as effective as burglar alarm stickers.  The burglars see the sticker, and they decide that there may be too much risk and move on to the next house.  Likewise, if they think that there is an angry dog inside, they go elsewhere.

OPF: So, killing them is just to scare them?

JOHN: Not exactly.  It has a number of other effects, as well.  As soon as it started, there would be very few, if any, individual soldiers or policeman doing anything.  They would change their uniform before going home, and whenever something had to be done, they would travel in large enough groups to affect their safety.  This would reduce the number of active units that could be imposing on the people, or breaking in doorways.  It would also have the effect of reducing, or culling the herd.  Each dead or injured soldier or policeman would have reduced the force by one.  His death would also have a greater impact on his friends, and cause them some concern for what they were doing.  I'm pretty sure that they knew what was happening, and this might have just moved them enough to refuse to go along with it.  But, this never happened.

OPF: What about the political leaders?

JOHN: Well, there is no doubt that they could have been targets, as well.  Had, say, Goering been killed, then much of what he did might never have happened.  Just think about the world today.  Didn't we try to kill Gaddafi and Hussein?  Didn't we kill Diem and then plant our man as leader of South Vietnam?  Taking the political leaders out is, definitely, a political tool.

* * *

OPF: What about the Deutsches Bank and other institutions that supported the government?

JOHN: Well, there is a lot of support of any government by many institutions in a country.  Some may already be influential and others may be seeking influence.  They do so on the premise that if they favor the government, they will be favored by the government.  The government realizes that it needs all of the support, both financial and industrial, to achieve its purpose.  So, each is scratching the other's back.  If something was done to create a risk greater than the benefit, then I think that they would think differently.  After all, they, like the government, need employees to do anything.  Can you imagine how effective a government would be if nobody worked for it?

* * *

OPF: Now, you have suggested that small groups of people could do this and get away with it.  Do you really believe that they could get away with it?

JOHN: There is always a risk.  If they were to operate properly -- say, a group of two to five people, like they call cells nowadays, planned everything, scoped the job, wore rubber gloves, kept their "work clothes" somewhere else, set up alibis, and really did their homework, I would think that only chance or bad luck would keep them from safely doing their job.  The more groups there were, the more thinly they would spread their opposition.  And, they would have been wise to have established escape plans, and means to communicate with their families, once the had to flee.

OPF: Given the Gestapo tactics, wouldn't there be risk of being infiltrated?

JOHN: Yes, there is always that risk.  There is also the risk of having someone that is not an infiltrator get caught at something else and turn against his friends to reduce, or remove his punishment for another crime.  Remember, you wrote about Don Bunds in Waco, and then there was Michael Fortier.  That guy Marshall in West Virginia, and many other cases where informants or infiltrators caused the destruction of even innocent activity -- like the Viper Militia.  To protect themselves from something like this, they should watch for a change in the nature or actions of one of their members.  You've seen the old black and white movies where someone gives himself away by having to make a call, or sneaks out, or some other activity.  Every caution would have to have been taken to keep Gestapo informants from infiltrating, and if suspicion existed, plans would have to have been changed, or, maybe, the member taken out.  No trial, but the possibility of error rather than the risk of losing the cell.  If cells had to communicate, only one member of any given cell would be known to any of the other cells.  Only one man could go down that way.  This guy would have to be chosen by the others as the most stoic.  The Gestapo could be pretty cruel when they wanted to be.  Eventually, as successes were achieved, I think that it would have become more open, just like in France.  Major operations were conducted after the cells were tried and hardened.  Their communication became more wide based, even to the point of the BBC broadcasting instructions to various groups via the radio.  By then, the cells were hardened and the chance if infiltration was almost non-existent.  Had that happened in Germany, there would not be nearly as many American graves across the European countryside.

* * *

OPF: When should the people have begun acting in this way?

JOHN: It probably never would have been too early -- once Hitler gained power.  I would think, though, that, depending on where you lived and what you had experienced, that the time to begin would vary based upon your experience.  I would like to think that as soon as you knew where things were going, like so many do today in this country, that you would form your cell and act.  As each cell began acting, it would motivate others to do so.  Soon the risk would have become so great that the Reich may never have even begun its attempt to conquer the world.  But, starting could never have been considered too late.  If cells began when the Germans were being pushed out of France, it still would have been effective.

* * *

OPF: Well, John, thanks for your time.  I suppose, if people do act when they know something is wrong, like the Founding Fathers did, that they can achieve what they want.  Perhaps World War II could have been avoided.  It is something to think about.

JOHN: Your welcome, Gary.  I think you are right.  Many will probably, like those Germans I told you about, regret that they did not act sooner.  I only wish I was younger and, well, if I had been a German...

 

This article can be found on line at Breaking the Bonds of Slavery