Jim Stachowiak; Committees of Safety; and, Shades of Grey
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011
There is a self-proclaimed “leader” of the patriot community who goes by many names. He is Jim Stach; Jim Stachowiak; Freedom Fighter; and, probably more.
Though he claims to have been a patriot for 34 years, an Internet search finds results no older than 2008. I suppose we all can make such claims, though if we are active in the community, it would seem that something that was noteworthy would show more than just 3 years ago.
Now, I did not know who Jim Stach (I will use the easier to pronounce and spell version of the name) was until Riflestock was being put together. I received a response to my posting of the first announcement of RifleStock (RifleStock 2011), from Jim, claiming that neo-Nazis were behind RifleStock.
Now, I cannot say how Jim got on my mailing list, though I only put people on that list that have requested to be there, though I do not recall any prior communication with him.
I contacted Jim, in response to his claims, explaining that I was not a neo-Nazi; that Mike Freebyrd has an Hispanic surname, and in my conversation s with him, there was no indication that he was a neo-Nazi; and, that Joe Racer said nothing to indicate that he was a neo-Nazi. Since I was involved as one of the organizers, I had more insight into what was happening with RifleStock than someone who simply read what I had written, and made such determination.
We then discussed the patriot community. Jim had bad things (accusations) to say about a whole handful of people, some of whom I knew. We talked about not calling names within our own community, since the government only benefits when we cannot get along amongst ourselves. He agreed, and agreed to stop making such accusations.
I also explained Committees of Safety, in our rather lengthy discussion. All seemed well, and he invited me to be a guest on his January 20, 2001, radio program (Freedom Fighter Radio), to discuss Militia and Committees of Safety. I agreed.
The next day, he called me and ranted (I can’t find another word for what he had to say) about other patriots (contrary to what we had agreed to, the day before). He went on and on and on, and I was unable to get a word in. Finally, I reminded him that he had invited me to be a guest on his radio show. If, however, he was inviting me to be on the show so that he could rant, and I were only be allowed to speak as little I was in the current conversation, I would have to decline the invite. Without another word, he hung up. I was not on the program.
The next I heard from Jim was after I posted Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation), which was also sent to the mail list. His knee-jerk reaction was, well, let me quote from the email:
“this is a joke lol as wram and arm have proven neo nazi connections” (April 11, 2011). Interestingly, Jim’s email address is “email@example.com”. Even more interesting is that he associated the Committee of Safety with WRAM (Well Regulated American Militia). This is telling, since he claims “wram” is run by Neo-Nazis, and, he must know that I posted that article on the WRAM site. Does he have an infiltrator; does he have a friend that is a neo-Nazi; or, does he cloak himself in even another name, to sneak into where he finds such “filth”?
I also posted it to about 30 others, including Tea Party and Glenn Beck sites, and I may have posted it to some sites that were controlled by those evil Republicans and Democrats, who have done far more to take away our rights than WRAM or even the neo-Nazis. After all, I do try to get what I have to say out to all (not a selective few) who might be interested in it. This, of course, is because I believe that we all have to work together to amass the number of people that we will need to regain control of the government and return it to its Constitutional foundation. And, in the hope that some who think wrongly may, by reading something, may just decide to begin thinking rightly. But, then, that is trying to bring together, not to tear apart.
On that same day, April 11, Jim informed me that:
” iam only doing news now i have given up on a national movement our group here is now calling ourselfs a a fdf family defense force of family and only close friends no recruiting.”
So, we will have to see if he means what he said, or, if he is simply insincere and unpredictable.
That same day, he provided the following, ” there is no way to insure fairness n this plan no way as the movement is infiltrated from the very top to the bottom i have unti recently been in movement since late 80;s “. So, here, he is in the “movement” from the late eighties. Being generous, let’s use 1985. Then, then would be a total of 26 years in the “movement”. Let’s just keep that under advisement.
Then, three days later, he says, ” gary your idea cant and wont work for example if someone has a problem with me they have no power to drag me in if i wont participate the militia movement has to many who call nazis patriots wram is proof of this 706-394-8019 at least after today maybe july4 patriot will be where he belongs jail.”
This is interesting in that the Common Law Court is voluntary. That is what was intended. If someone makes claims, then he is charged with making false claims, he can answer (defend and prove those claims), or not. Each will speak for itself. And, the ultimate judge of what is right will be the judgment, not of the followers or the parties (accuser and accused), rather, of the patriot community, as they will have the opportunity to review all of the information presented (or not presented), and judge for themselves, what the truth really is. This, at least, would put an end to name-calling, unless it was provable, and would work wonders in doing away with false accusations. Especially those made which provide no opportunity to respond (as we will get in to, later).
His next response, that same day, was, ” well only if both parties participate and iwill never take part as i know the movement is dead and controlled by anti Semitic racist pricks you may call me i will address this common law bs on my show sometime and encourage non involvement i do get thousands of downloads each week too”. I’ll let you take that, for what it’s worth.
Now, we come to the current round of discussion. Though I had spend quite some time, on numerous occasions, explaining to Jim what Committees of Safety were (and, are), he decided to take them (not me) to task. He posted “Whats Up Doc? Neo-Nazi WRAM and ARM Member Arrested June 1, 2011 Doc [ NAZI] Sacramaniac In Jail” (link no longer valid), and sent me the link and asked me to call him.
First, the pertinent part of that “exposé” by Jim:
“Freedom Fighter Radio Challenges any and all Patriot websites to publicly denounce the NSM, such as Oath Keepers (Stewart Rhodes), Committees of Safety (Gary Hunt) and all Militia forums.”
So, first I went to NSM and found that they presented 25 points, which I assume stand for the principles of the NSM88 group. When I read their points, I see that they are as socialistic as the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Congress, except, they want to impose limitations on the socialism, such as requiring drug tests for those on welfare. Well, in that regard, I hold them in a higher light than the Democrats, Republicans, and the Congress, since, at least, they think that there should be some accountability on the beneficiaries of free money. However, it is not Constitutional, so I object to any transfer of wealth.
Now, there is little doubt that the 25 points have racist (or, is that racialist) tones to them. But, then, it is only political correctness that says that we are criminal if we have human thoughts of hate (though love, even between people of the same sex is okay), the Democrats, the Republicans and Congress, support this by enactment of laws that, generally, only work in one direction.
Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that I believe in what they say, though I do believe that the Congress, and the Democrats and Republicans, have created a very fertile ground for overreaction to the emotions that exist in a normal society, love and hate. When either is outlawed, both being the character of human nature, you are made criminal for being human. On top of that, you see that there are those who support such laws because they are selective, not in writing, rather, in enforcement. When put in that position, it is, again, human nature, to look for those who are willing to say what you want to say, and, even though they may be more extreme in what they say, they, at least, are willing to say it. The rest of the people will only say it in whispers, for fear of being caught, and charged with a crime, or, being castigated as not being “politically correct”. It becomes the only refuge for those willing to speak what they believe (freedom of speech), and, then, they are made (by another form of “patriotic political correctness”) out as criminal by those who should be their support of the Constitution, allow them the right to express their sentiments. This, then, tends to push them even further into their chosen refuge, and defend themselves against attackers — who should be on their side, if not philosophically, at least, lawfully and Constitutionally.
This is all a result of “political correctness” achieving a polarization (making everything black or white), though it is target specific, and does not apply to all. Whatever happened to the shades of grey that allowed us to disagree and get along, at the same time? After all, if you study the history of this country, you will find, whether with regard to reconciliation or independence, or, what form of government, there was never absolute agreement. They shades of grey were weighed, and a consensus made, in both cases, and the country followed that course. Each was allowed to choose, and was not cast out if his ideas were not consistent with the majority. He was respected for his input and the thoughts that he brought to the table. Likewise, he respected the result, even though not what he, personally desired.
You see, it was those shades of grey that allowed the thought and discussion that lead the Founders to what they, finally, gave to us, their posterity. It was a living society that, through free expression, allowed debate and discussion, without resorting to the current government tactic of demonization, in place of reasoned debate.
Now, since I had done my homework (gone to the NSM site), I was ready to responded to Jim’s request that I call him. He wanted J. T. Campbell to join us in the call, to which I had no objection — until I found that neither one of them, apparently, had intention of hearing what I had to say. If I managed to get a complete sentence out, in the conversation, I had two people responding, not to what I had just said, rather, to what they wanted me to say.
My first explanation was that I am not Committees of Safety. Committees of Safety is a concept with heritage in our English traditions; an historical concept that goes back to long before the creation of the United States. As such, I cannot speak for the Committees of Safety — since each Committee would be local, then county, then state — and that they can only speak for themselves. It is not an organization with a leader who must be followed (the unfortunate consequence of our current society having lost the concepts embodied in our creation as a nation, and the ideals of the Founders), rather, it is a number of organizations, each representing those who live within its realm, and, who make the decisions, for themselves. That by tradition, Committees did not act in a legislative capacity, except in establishing laws to deal with Tories and laws regarding the Militia. As such, I don’t believe that they would be within their authority to make such a decision to support, or denounce, any other organization.
Now, all for this about Committees was left unsaid, due to the interruptions. This made it apparent that the request that I call was not to get answers, rather, it was an effort to intimidate me into acceptance of what they chose to dictate.
In his effort to justify the attack on NSM (the 25 points are linked, above), and the demand for denouncing them, Jim did say that he has read many posts on that site that are of a much more threatening nature than the 25 points. So, I guess we can ask some questions here:
- Do the thoughts of any single member, or members, of an organization speak for that organization?
- If so, what if what they say contradicts the espoused purpose of the organization?
- Should that organization disassociate with other organizations that don’t follow the exact same ideology?
- Can one man dictate what an entire organization stands for?
After I spoke with Jim, and since he and J. T. did not want to hear what I had to say, I wrote an email, to set the record straight. Jim has chosen to post portions of this email dialogue, though they are hard to follow, and out of context. Below is the entire discussion:
1. Gary to Jim (after the phone conversation was over):
Since your blog does not allow for responses, even from those named in the blog, I will try to make clear, in writing, the position of the Committees of Safety, with regard to such denouncements that you seem to be demanding.
First, I am not the Committee of Safety. I am, however, a student of the historical Committees of Safety. I cannot make a decision pro, or con, with regard to your request.
Second, Committees of Safety are local entities that are, for all intents and purposes, local governing bodies, elected by the people in a community (the Association), to fill the place, in the absence only of existing government’s failure to provide, for the safety and needs of the community (Association). Any decisions to be made are made at that local level, not by me, who is only a student of the Committees of Safety.
Third, historically, the Committees of Safety did not enact laws, nor did they take any position in political, matters, except when they denounced Tories (people inimical to American Liberty). Tories were those who supported the Royal government, once the division between what the constitution and charters meant came into question. (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence for an example of that division.)
Fourth, with the exception of Tories. Freedom of Speech was supported by the Committees of Safety. Absent a law prohibiting something (NSM88, Nazi Party, Socialist Party, . Democratic Party, Republican Party, etc.), there is no position that the Committees of Safety can take regarding either denouncing or supporting and other group.
Now, I know you are trying to leverage support for your beliefs. I do hope that you are open-minded enough to understand that you are asking for something that would allow personal, or, individual, influence in an organization that is in no position to make such proclamations.
I do trust that you and J. T. Campbell understand the position that has to be taken in the matter. I can assure you that if you don’t, there will be no action taken by the Committees of Safety, regardless of what efforts to denounce the Committees of Safety you take, since, by virtue of the explanation, above, the same would apply to you, regardless of what assertions you make about Committees of Safety.
Please forward this to J. T. so that he, also, understands what I was trying to tell you on the phone.
I do apologize for hanging up, but since you would not hear me out, I felt that putting it in writing was the best solution.
2. In an effort, again, to try to explain why Committees of Safety could not take a position, I sent the following:
An example of the attitude taken by Committees of Safety in 1774:
On December 12, 1774 (before Lexington and Concord), the Maryland Provincial Congress, which was the colonial substitute governing body, created by the local Committees of Safety, set forth a series of Resolves. The last on, Number 7, sets forth the sense of the Congress, with regard to personal animosities.
“(7.) 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 liberties.”
Again, please pass on to J. T.
3. Jim to Gary (this was replied to my mail list post, Committees of Safety and the General Association:
so you have not met the challenge we will be putting it out there on a regular basis and point out the neo nazi connections to wram and arm this is for the cause of freedom to expose the nazis from with in like doc sacramanic and jt ready more to be exposed
4. Gary to Jim:
Threats and intimidation will only bring dishonor to you. It will come, and, I suspect, it will come soon.
That is not the way that free people should be expected to act. It is more along the lines of the Southern Poverty Law Center tactics.
Have at it, but, understand that your tactics have cost you any support I could offer you.
5. Jim to Gary:
gary dishonor in exposing nazis lol you are buying into bullshit and my audience is worldwide not just those you reach wake up i have been at this a long time
6. Gary to Jim:
When you believe that you have the right/authority to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, you have, well, become a dictator.
As I explained (or, tried to, since you and J.T. didn’t really want to hear what I had to say), if you took it to the court, and got a verdict, then you would be justified.
Instead, in your self-righteous arrogance, decide that you can decide for all of the rest.
I have nothing to discuss with someone who decides what is best for all.
7. Gary to Jim (I was curious about his claim of how long he had been in the “movement”:
You have been at this a long time. How long?
8. Gary to Jim
Dishonor has to do with how you do something, not what you do.
9. Jim to Gary:
34 years will be posting these emails and quote you on calling Michigan militia bigots
10. Gary to Jim:
Have at it. However, if you say that I said something that I didn’t say, you might find that you have hell to pay.
Let’s make some other things clear, I never said “Michigan Militia”, during the entire conversation. Jim seemed come to that (or at least first make the claim) in his last email – #9, above. Any comment I made regarding bigot was in this context: “Jim you call me a bigot because I because I won’t do what you want me to do. Does that make you a bigot?”
Somehow, then, this was construed, by Jim, to mean that I called the Michigan Militia bigots. Apparently, that message was passed on to someone who goes by Thumper”, who responded, according to Jim’s post, by saying, “bite me”, which appears to be directed at me.
Now, since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, they have to stand on their own, There was no response that I could make on their behalf, since I am only a student of Committees of Safety and attempting to pass on what to other what I have learned.
This did not mean that I couldn’t be concerned about the Michigan Militia, since in the nineties I was in contact with Norm Olson and Mark Koernke. And though I haven’t been in contact with the Michigan Militia, since then, I was concerned that they might think that either I or the Committees of Safety (which can’t even have a voice), I decide to see if I could find someone in the upper echelons in the Michigan Militia, and set the record straight. After all, the post made it appear as if I was trying to denigrate them, based not upon what I said, rather, what Jim said that I said (and interesting tactic, used frequently by the SPLC).
My intention was to try to get through to “Thumper”, though I found an intelligent voice on the other end of the phone, so we discussed what had occurred. The person on the other end of the conversation seemed to understand both what I was saying, and, the nature of Jim Stach. We talked about other aspects of the patriot community, and seemed to be on agreement on just about everything. I told him that if we are fighting amongst ourselves we would never be able to take on the government. That the division in the patriot community is more destructive than anything that the government can do (overtly), and that we are doing it to ourselves.
He asked me if I thought that there was anything wrong with the Michigan Militia not allowing neo-Nazis the right to join the Michigan Militia, and I told him that I believed that if that was what Michigan Militia wanted, they had every right to limit their membership, though they didn’t have the right to try to intimidate others organizations from making their own decisions. We seemed to agree on that last point, and the conversation was concluded. I will say that I believe that the other person felt rather uncomfortable that the Michigan Militia was even made party to the dispute between Jim and me.
Well, I thought that this was the end of it. I had explained to the Michigan Militia that what Jim said I said was not what I said. Since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, there was nothing left for me to do.
Friday (June 10) evening, I received an email from Jim, making clear that his efforts to intimidate by demonization were over. The email provided a link (http://freedomfighterradio.net/2011/06/10/gary-hunt-of-outpost-of-freedom-and-committees-of-safety-calls-michigan-militia-racist-bigots-and-turns-down-challenge/[link no longer valid]), and, though I have no capacity to defend the Committees of Safety, the Outpost of Freedom has now been named, and that brings on a whole new battle. Outpost of Freedom has been what I have been writing under since January 1993. It was the name of the newspapers I published; the fax network (in the nineties); and has been the name of my webpage since 1995. It is not an organization, nor is it an association of people (as the Committees of Safety). It is mine, and I will defend it. Neither of Jim’s posts have provision to respond. Since, if I respond by email, Jim will cut and paste and manufacture, to suit his objective (whatever it might be), I will go public with what has transpired, and, I will be open to response by Jim (comments section, at the bottom of this blog). I have always believed that both sides of any story must be heard, and, that any judgment be made with a fair hearing of both sides.
I will not pretend to speak for Committees of Safety, though I will speak for Outpost of Freedom. “Thumper” seems to think that he speaks for the Michigan Militia (though that is not the impression I got from the conversation, above). Jim Stach seems to speak, also, for the Michigan Militia, though not even a member, as well as the entire Militia community, since he knows that they must submit to his “challenge”, or subject themselves to his insignificant and infantile tantrum of wrath.
Now, return to what Jim said about what some said on the NSM page. He suggests that they speak for the NSM, regardless of what their policy (25 points) says.
Jim also presumes that he speak for the entire Militia community, regardless of what each Militia determines its own policy to be. He suggests that, if you don’t do what I say, you are not a patriot. If you do what I say, I will kick everybody out of the patriot community, by use of this demonization process, that I think doesn’t belong here. It is not your decision, it is my decision.
So, there, you have my side of the story.
You be the judge. Comments are welcome, so long as they are presented in a decent manner. If you resort to name-calling, you may find that certain remarks may be edited, though the context will not be changed.