I’ve stuck by my beliefs, I’m not going to change.

Mike Lindell

Since last November the country has been divided about the election. Roughly a third of the population believes the election was stolen from President Donald Trump. About 59 percent disagree with this assertion, with 9 percent saying they do not know. This division of the country is no ordinary one. If this question is not settled by rational inquiry, America could break into two countries – or revert to a one-party dictatorship – a regime of threats and punishments.

An inquiry of such importance requires great diligence. It should be about evidence. We do not need, on the one side, federal officials decrying state election audits as bogus. We also do not need a well-meaning pillow salesman, like Mike Lindell, pushing a false narrative like Absolute Proof – supported by an echo chamber of true-believers, grifters and yes-men. It is my belief that Lindell’s documentary Absolute Proof is an “absolute swindle.” And Lindell is the victim of this swindle. His intentions are good, but he does not understand what proof is. Consequently, Lindell has been tricked into supporting a narrative that could derail the election audit process.

An election fraud narrative emerges

After the election, from November to January, I was interviewed by Brannon Howse on several occasions. Brannon was then very excited by information he had picked up from Mary Fanning, a “journalist” whose site is called The American Report. According to Fanning, a computer technician named Dennis Montgomery had acquired “proof” of a massive cyber-hack against computers used to tabulate the November elections. Brannon wanted me to climb aboard, and join the campaign to “stop the steal.” He advised me to buy and read a book titled The Hammer is the Key to the Coup, “The Political Crime of the Century”: How Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and the CIA spied on President Trump, General Flynn … and everyone else, by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones.

I downloaded the book and began to read. It was like one of those bad advertisements in which you are told, again and again, how great a product is; but you never get to see the product. Every conceivable side-issue is rehashed and regurgitated in that book. It was, in the end, a bootless series of assertions. Okay, there is a lot of illegal surveillance and computer skullduggery out there. Who doubts it?

I called Brannon to learn more. Okay, I said, this Dennis Montgomery guy is supposed to be a heroic whistleblower. What has he got? “Montgomery knows how the election was stolen,” Brannon replied, “and everything has been confirmed by other sources.” What other sources? Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney (retired) was one source. A shadowy (former?) intelligence official was alluded to. Well, I said, if it’s true then what are they waiting for? All was to be revealed in short order, Brannon promised.

Montgomery either had proof, or he didn’t. The election was then almost two months in the past. What was the point in holding onto vital evidence? The whole thing made no sense. Release it immediately. Let the whole country see it; but that was not to happen. Instead of anyone heroically proving election fraud, the events of January 6 brought images of citizens breaking into the Capitol. President Trump was de-platformed and discredited, the election fraud narrative was declared a threat to democracy. A chill ran through the conservative right as dissenters were kicked off Twitter, Facebook and Youtube).

If he had proof, why didn’t Montgomery come forward earlier? What had he been waiting for? I did a google search on Montgomery. There was a great deal of derogatory information about him. Why hadn’t Brannon mentioned this? I found several well-researched articles by a writer named Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email. I found her phone number and put in a call, but did not get an immediate response. Oh well, I thought.

In the days that followed, I appeared one last time on Brannon’s evening show. Mary Fanning, Alan Jones, Lt. Gen. McInerny and Kirk Wiebe were also guests. They were promoting Dennis Montgomery’s alleged evidence of an election hack from overseas computers, published online for the first time. At last, we would see the proof that Brannon had been promising for two months. But all I saw was a chart filled with numbers. When you see something like this, you have to scratch your head. There was no way of knowing what you were looking at. Later, a computer expert told me those numbers were bogus.

After the show of that evening, there followed a group telephone conversation that lasted more than three hours. Mary Fanning and Alan Jones seemed amiable enough. Mary was flattering me, saying how much she liked my work. Should I be holding fast to my wallet? I mentioned Sharon Rondeau’s articles. Mary said Sharon’s work was a pack of lies that came from Mike Zullo, who had famously investigated Barack Obama’s birth certificate. “He is an agent of the deep state,” said Fanning. “He works for Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director.” This statement by Fanning was an outlandish claim on its face. Was Mary a crazed conspiracy theorist? I then mentioned two friends with intelligence background who had told me Montgomery was untrustworthy. “They are both deep state operatives,” said Fanning. “Bad actors.” What?! She was talking about two of my friends. What was I to make of this woman? The entire thing was baffling. These folks – Fanning, Jones, Wiebe, Howse and General McInerney – acted as if definitive proof had been presented that evening. Yet the proof was entirely invisible to the discerning eye. It was like a scene out of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen:

One day, two fellows calling themselves weavers came to town. They said that they knew how to weave cloth of the most beautiful colors and patterns. The clothes made from this wonderful cloth would be invisible to everyone who was unfit for the job he held, or who was very simple in character.

A couple days later Sharon Rondeau returned my call. She was very down-to-earth. I felt her genuineness immediately. Sharon said that if I wanted to see documentation on Montgomery’s background, I needed to connect with a detective who had spent 15 months investigating Montgomery. That detective was Mike Zullo, a former investigator for Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sharon gave me Mike’s phone number. I called him and he put me through a crash course on Montgomery’s shady past. My first conversation with Mike lasted five hours. As a mere taste of what I learned, the reader is encouraged to peruse these FBI 302s:

FBI information on Dennis Montgomery

Zullo, who had been tasked by Sheriff Arpaio to investigate Obama’s birth certificate more than a decade ago, was no agent of the “deep state” (as Fanning alleged). In 2012 his investigation of Obama concluded with expert testimony that the president’s electronic long form birth certificate was a photoshopped forgery. That is not something an agent of the “deep state” would have on his resume. As I plowed through the evidence, which included videotapes of Montgomery contradicting himself about his background, I began to worry. Why was this con artist inserting himself into the election narrative?

According to the testimony of lawyers, judges and cyber-experts, Dennis Montgomery had committed numerous frauds and perjuries. Even more curious, Montgomery had a felony fraud indictment hanging over him for the past 13 years. It had not been adjudicated in all that time. How was that possible? Had he made some kind of backroom deal with a law enforcement agency? Was he an FBI asset? Anything was now possible. In fact, Montgomery had already been outed as a fraudster in a 2010 Playboy article as “The man who conned the Pentagon.” Software he had been contracted to develop had reportedly proved to be “an elaborate hoax.” Montgomery’s former lawyer even described him as a “habitual liar engaged in fraud.” And that is merely for starters. I was dumbfounded. Brannon Howse was being hoaxed by a notorious grifter. This explained why the promised proof of an election cyber-hack was nowhere to be seen.

A few days later Mary Fanning called me to see how I was doing. “We ought to put our heads together,” she suggested. “Imagine what we could figure out.” Figuring things out was my favorite pastime.  She’d done her homework on me. But I’d also done mine. I told her about my conversations with Zullo. She then told me a story. “Mike and I used to talk on the phone,” she said. “And one time he was very drunk, and he admitted to me that he worked for Jim Woolsey.” It was immediately apparent to me that Mary Fanning was not some ditzy conspiracy theorist. She was not telling me something that came from Dennis Montgomery. She was lying out of her own mouth. She was clearly attempting to discredit the one person who had investigated – and who had proof – that Dennis Montgomery was as phony as a three-dollar bill. 

“Listen,” I said, “I’ve read this law suit from Montgomery’s former lawyer. He says in writing that Montgomery is a “con artist” and “habitual liar engaged in fraud.” Mary did not miss a beat. “The lawyer has retracted that statement,” she lied. “But Mary,” I said, “Nobody is backing up Montgomery’s story.” Mary did not miss a beat. “Tim Blixseth, Montgomery’s business partner, backs him up,” she lied again. (I later made an inquiry into this claim, and found that Fanning had tried to get Blixseth to back Montgomery’s claims, but Blixseth didn’t want anything to do with it.) Why was Mary Fanning lying to me? Not only had she whitewashed Montgomery’s background in her book, but she was ready to trash anyone who questioned Montgomery’s bona fides. Why was she covering up the truth? Why was she gaslighting me? What was her game?

I left the line realizing that Brannon Howse had gotten mixed up in something dangerous. Who was Mary Fanning? Why was she lying about Montgomery? – about Mike Zullo? Why did she slander two of my friends? It was now clear who the bad actor was.  I needed to warn Brannon. Something bad had crawled into his life, and he was being set up. I brought my concerns directly to him, but he blew me off, asking if I had “done my homework on Zullo?” Yes, I have. Brannon then leveled the following accuasation against Zullo: “Montgomery has … documentation showing multiple contracts from multiple agencies [for Zullo]. Call Mary. She can tell you who is lying.” In a way, Mary had already told me who was lying. Her conversation a few days earlier had convinced me that she was the liar. She had slandered my friends. She had covered up Montgomery’s well-documented misdeeds. It was crazy. He was asking me to disbelieve my friends and believe instead in a woman who had lied to me. Brannon then mentioned the documentary he was working on with Mike Lindell – Absolute Proof. He said, “Our documentary does not mention Montgomery.”

What?! Were they now going to advance Montgomery’s narrative without using Montgomery’s name? But why?

The answer, of course, was painfully obvious. The cancer had just metastasized. Mary Fanning and Brannon Howse had approached Mike Lindell; – the wealthy, generous, patriotic Mike Lindell. How they did it, I have no idea; but these two had sold Lindell on the truthfulness of Dennis Montgomery. Worse yet, they were phasing Montgomery’s name from the public side of the narrative. Very dodgy, I thought. Henceforth, Montgomery’s name would not be front and center. As future “executive producers” of Lindell’s documentaries, they would refer to “the source,” or to “white hat hackers.” But as I had heard the story in its original form, and had more than one long conversation on Montgomery with Fanning and Howse, the situation was perfectly clear. They had sold Montgomery’s scam to Lindell. And Lindell, in his patriotic zeal, believed this would be the “absolute proof” that could return Trump to office.

The danger was now clear. What might the legal charges be if Mike Lindell publicized Montgomery’s fraudulent data about the election with the intention of overturning the presidency of Joseph Biden? Could the Justice Department prosecute this sort of thing as a crime? And who would they arrest? Could Donald Trump be named as a co-conspirator? Or was this merely a scheme to discredit the election audits and everything associated with them?

In the months that followed, I warned my friends to distrust the Montgomery narrative. I warned that the Absolute Proof documentary was a disguised form of that narrative. But these warnings went nowhere. They had no effect. I even worked with a handful of others to reach Lindell’s inner circle. But he would not believe our warning.

People in high places wanted Montgomery’s false election fraud narrative to gain traction. One respectable conservative scholar tried to set me straight. It was wrong to make a fuss about this, he said. I was being “academic,” he said. The truth did not matter because this was “politics.” If the American people were “saved by a deceptive narrative,” then it was a good thing. But I could not see, from the standpoint of Machiavelli himself, how this could end well.  

Truth by algorithm?

As the year advanced, I began to hear about math wizards who were validating Montgomery’s narrative with “algorithms.” My background is in social science, and I know that using numbers to analyze social phenomena is an extremely tricky business. Since Montgomery is a fraud, and since I do not trust the woman who so ably promoted him, my skepticism necessarily extends to anyone who claims to validate this narrative; and that goes double for someone who is being paid.

For these and other reasons, the seconding of Montgomery’s claims by Dr. Douglas Frank drew my attention. This star performer, who appeared in Lindell’s documentary Absolute Interference, is alternately described on various websites as a chemist or as a physicist. He seems like a nice man, and perhaps he is competent in his field. Curiously, NBC in Columbus Ohio described him as a teacher at the Schilling Gifted School. Whatever his background and accomplishments, he is not an election expert or an epidemiologist.

To show how wrong Dr. Frank can be, last August Frank said the coronavirus had run its course in his home state of Ohio. But the number of COVID deaths in Ohio would accelerate three months later. In fact, the number of daily cases peaked in early winter – long after Frank authoritatively claimed the epidemic was winding down. (See Ohio cases.) In truth, Dr. Frank was seriously mistaken in his analysis of the COVID epidemic. Could he be mistaken in his support of Montgomery’s election fraud narrative (wholeheartedly adopted by Lindell)?

According to Dr. Frank, a foreign cyberattack on the election was accomplished through the deployment of an algorithm (i.e., some kind of a six-level polynomial which relies on a state-wide “data key”) which Dr. Frank has “discovered.” How does the algorithm prove Montgomery’s version of election fraud? This algorithm supposedly produces a detectable, artificial, pattern in the voting outcomes in thousands of U.S. counties – indicating that vote tallies across the board have been falsified by computer manipulation (i.e., by an algorithm inserted in a cyberattack against thousands of U.S. computers from abroad). Professor David Clements, a believer in Frank’s math, has assured me that “Dozens of expert mathematicians have verified” Frank’s work. “It’s not even in dispute,” adds Clements. But it is in dispute.

On the more wary side, Benjamin Engen of the Constellation Political website says that Dr. Frank’s underlying data points for Colorado are flat wrong. As someone who knows the Colorado numbers, Engen says that Dr. Frank is “using incorrect ballots cast figures as the basis for his entire analysis.” It is a case, says Engen, of “garbage in, garbage out.” Engen then links to Dr. Frank’s website where the erroneous data was posted, but the page has been taken down. “Sorry,” writes Engen parenthetically, “the host removed the link after this blog was published.” Whatever anyone says, taking down your own data without explanation is dodgy. If Dr. Frank made an honest mistake, why not admit it? What has not been taken down, of course, are links to various videos in which Frank can be seen referring to erroneous numbers. “Even more bizarre,” says Engen, “is the fact that even the raw data Frank supposedly used for his analysis doesn’t produce the figures he has been presenting.”

Engen says that Frank is “careful never to show the actual equation that he uses to produce his turnout estimates.” Engen shows screenshots of Frank’s presentation for Park County and Eagle County Colorado. Look closely, says Engen, Dr. Frank is not using the same equations. Well, yes, that does seem to be true. Frank, says Engen, “doesn’t show a single consistent ratio of … anything to anything.” Here Engen levels a direct accusation against Dr. Frank, saying, “He’s lying about how his forecast is derived.” As a Colorado Republican, Engen is not amused. “The most troubling piece of all this is that it seems clear that Dr. Frank arrived in Colorado knowing that his data was bad and intending to present it anyway.”

Defenders of Dr. Frank, like David Clements, point out that the Colorado Secretary of State has been “manipulating the data on her site.” – And that might be true; but is this the explanation for Dr. Frank’s errors regarding counties in Colorado? And if the Colorado data was wrong, or has been shifting, then how did Frank’s algorithm prove correct for Colorado in the first place? If different numbers are entered in the future, will the algorithm work yet again? And if plugging in any number suffices to “prove” the algorithm’s validity, can I plug in my bank statements and grocery store receipts to get a correlation? The whole thing is baffling, to be sure. And why did Dr. Frank take down the offending page on his site after Mr. Engen found data errors on it? And how on Earth can anyone explain the claim that other mathematicians have independently “replicated” Dr. Frank’s work? Is it a case of X(6) – X(6) + 1 always equaling 1? Does Frank’s polynomial equation homogenize numbers whatever they might be? In an interview with Clements, Frank says “It would take a week to share my source code.” Really? If that is true, then how has anyone managed to check Frank’s numbers? “It is my own instinctual stuff,” added Frank. “It is not transportable.”

Perhaps the most disturbing interaction attested to by Dr. Frank, is one more familiar to myself. During a broadcast session Dr. Frank was left in the studio while Mike Lindell went on a break. Suddenly, a woman’s voice broke out of nowhere: “Dr. Frank, are you really a physicist?” Dr. Frank was momentarily confused: “And I’m like what is that? And I didn’t realize that Mary Fanning was facetiming with the whole [show] – because she was producing it, she was watching it happen, and I didn’t realize she was there. And I said, ‘Hi Mary, nice to meet you.’ I still hadn’t met her at that point. ‘Why are you asking if I’m a physicist?’ And she says, ‘Well, early on, back in December, we had a physicist looking at our data; and he said it’s obvious that there are algorithms at work here; but it’s going to take a physicist to figure them out.’ – And I knew exactly what that meant, because that is exactly the way a physicist thinks. That is who I am. That’s the way I think. Absolutely, I’m the logical guy to figure it out. I have the experience. I think in that way. That’s exactly right. That’s a good story.”

A story, indeed! And, as a final crazy admission, Dr. Frank expressed confidence in his data because Lindell had “hired Mission Impossible secret agent type people” who “broke into those computers … and took digital images of the [offending] computers, proving that there were actually people executing the commands when those were taking place.” According to Frank, Lindell “spent a lot of money on this.”

What I wonder is: How much money did Lindell spend on Dr. Frank? And did he get his money’s worth?  


I am very hard on Dr. Frank because – sincere or not – he is advancing what I consider to be a false narrative dangerous to the country. He is advancing the narrative of Dennis Montgomery. So here is my challenge to Dr. Frank: If Montgomery is not a fraud, why has his role in this narrative been hidden since January? If Fanning is honest, why doesn’t anyone know what she looks like? Why has her image been scrubbed from the Internet? Why was I the only person in the United States, who was approached by Fanning, to check into Montgomery’s bona fides by reaching out to Mike Zullo? If Mike Lindell says he vetted Montgomery’s information, why didn’t his investigators talk to Zullo? And why, after all this time, has this narrative continued to get so much attention – especially from Steve Bannon’s War Room? Mike Lindell is now sponsoring a Cyber Symposium from August 10th – 12th in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

I make the following appeal to Mike Lindell: I beg you, Mike, do not hold this Symposium in August. It could be a trap, or worse than a trap.

notes and links

Dennis L. Montgomery – Wikipedia

The American Report – Exposing what is in Plain Sight

THE HAMMER is the Key to the Coup “The Political Crime of the Century”: How Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and the CIA spied on President Trump, General Flynn … and everyone else – Kindle edition by Fanning, Mary, Jones, Alan. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

The Emperor’s New Clothes | Fairy Tales and Other Traditional Stories | Hans Christian Andersen | Lit2Go ETC (usf.edu)

Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Fake (thefederalistpapers.org)

Dr. Frank gets the Pandemic wrong – NBC4 – It’s all about the numbers, and Dr. Douglas Frank… | Facebook

Actual pandemic data for Ohio – Ohio COVID: 1,118,513 Cases and 20,449 Deaths – Worldometer (worldometers.info)

Benjamin Engen critiques Dr. Frank’s analysis – Constellation Data & Analytics (constellationpolitical.com)

David Clements Interview with Dr. Douglas Frank – Home / The Record Collection | Mysite (theprofessorsrecord.com)

Judge characterizes Montgomery – Microsoft Word – 07cv2513 o-Findings of Fact 5-13-16.docx (abc15.com)


Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)



J.R. Nyquist’s most recent book:

The Fool and His Enemy: Toward a Metaphysics of Evil: Nyquist, J.R.: 9798666501382: Amazon.com: Books

Also visit (my brother) Greg Nyquist’s new website, The Critical Realist (substack.com)

222 thoughts on “Absolute Sabotage: The Rise and Coming Fall of a False Narrative

  1. “That which becomes sick falls prey.”

    “24 times in one day and one night, we all
    line up in the starting gate; to contribute our
    fair share to the slow-motion stampede;
    froth supreme, never-ending swamp,
    – tell me Sir, why do you sigh?”

    “That which becomes sick falls prey.”

  2. Hi Jeff, interesting post, I wouldn’t have thought Mary was dishonest. I know her from Facebook. I just saw on German TV that there are warnings of cyber attacks in the Bundestag elections in September.

  3. If you listen to this doctor in the video below, what he describes sounds just like a bioweapon— an injection that leads to heart failure in a fixed percentage of people, after three years of extreme fatigue. Evidence of clotting and damage to the cardiovascular system in 62% of vaccine recipients! And Biden, who is clearly being influenced by CCP agents, is getting ready to mandate this for the entire US military after the FDA approves it in September. Talk about a Trojan horse!


  4. Mr. Nyquist, you replied to my comment on fools and the different cultural attitudes towards them,that they can even reach;

    ”To the presidency!”

    The modern republics promote nothing but fools by their very structure and basic assumptions.

  5. Most people are not aware that “indications and suggestions” are not proof. The data we had before Arizona started their forensic audit of the election fell under the head of “indications and suggestions.”

    In the area I live in, leftists often sport a bumper sticker, “Critical thinking – the other national deficit.” It’s ironic the left is unable to think critically, yet accuses everyone else of being unable to think critically. These days I laugh at the bumper sticker.

  6. Greyknight, you said;

    ”You are right, Vladamir. And even though we dont all agree on everything, we still recognize the value in each other and that we must stand together against our common enemies, as Mr. Nyquist has emphasized again and again. For a person to say they “are not buying what he is selling”, and then in the next sentence, say “we must be cautious a d get to the truth”, either this person has not perused the wealth deeply thought out information shared by Mr. Nyquist, or he is one of the fools of which you speak.”

    In this life much strife and contradictions arise,but a fool seems to embody them personally, without any notice.

    ”This site to me, is a treasure grove of information and things to think on, shared by Mr. Nyquist, and many of the commentors such as yourself.”

    Thank you,I do my best. I am a bit of a crusader; I don’t want good honest folk swamped by pagans. By the way,when I say ”good honest folk”,I’m reminded of the Peasant ancestors,the word for ”Peasant” in Russian is ”Khrestany”, ”Christians”.

    ”Where I live, I think we have things in common to your part of the world too. There is still the ability among many, to see a fool for what he is, and to treat him accordingly. The strong delusion has not infected many of the people in my circles, though it has infected some. I thank God that I live in the Deep South, where many of us still revere our true heroes, and despise the scoundrels.at least in my little area.”

    We all have our ”Carpetbaggers” and ”Scalawags”,don’t we? lol….

    ”I pray everyone has a blessed Lord’s Day, and we worship Him in spirit and in truth, with reverence.”

    And you as well, ”Slava Bogu!” (”Glory to God!”)

  7. What ever happened to the “kraken” that Sydney Powell mentioned?

    Reports at the time said that it included a military raid on a server farm run by a three letter agency in
    Germany, backed up by unusual flights by military assets and included a battle resulting in deaths among both the military and three letter agency. It was that server farm in Germany that was the “foreign” interference in the election.

    Now nothing is heard about that. Was that fake news? Did Trump face a mutiny in the military? Does not the present general staff in the Pentagon lend credence to that possibility? Or is Trump himself part of the swamp doing a scissors strategy against the American people, promoting false hopes of a political or military salvation that will not come, hence leading to inaction?

      1. Why do so many people in America talk and talk? Even when allegedly having a ”secret” plan for saving the country, stories abound of what is or was happening, and conservative pundits breathlessly recount tales of recounts magically leading to events like Trump’s restoration to the Presidency… It reminds me of the proverb;

        “that which the sensible man has in his head, the fool has on the tip of his tongue.”

        Better to say little as possible, nothing, even.

  8. This is the only way or place I see where I can respond to your last comments Mr. Nyquist. When I say that you are a fatalist and a defeatist, I am referring to your positioning relative to our potential survival, so I will ask you the exact same question that I asked Trevor Loudon: what percentage chance do you give for the survival and continuance of the American republic?

    1. I do not know how to give a percentage answer. With the low level of political understanding I see today, and the corruption, I do not understand how we have managed to survive to the present. But here we are. We are alive. Go figure.

    2. Robert Malins, maybe he is just a realist. All good men will fight if they can, when it is upon them. There is literally nothing we can do at this point. We are not the same America we were in 1776.

      1. I am of the same opinion and character as the founders were, you are, Mr. Nyquist is, and virtually all of the people posting on Mr. Nyquist’s site are. Are there not a million more like us? A valiant contingent of colonialists were absolute drunkards and brawlers; worthless in the eyes of many Americans. I say we are indeed of the character needed; all we need do is realize it and organize. And then I concede, we wait for an opportune time to—at some future date, nothing imminent, no immediate plans—hat tip F.BI.-overthrow this damned mess. As for now, a working rifle and 1,000 rounds are the bare minimum for any future participants. Do you have this at the ready?

      2. No money. No numbers. No organization. No Revolution. You have nothing on your side at present. You need a catalyst — which is a gift from your enemy. It is a gift he may never give you.

  9. Robert Malins, I’m just curious. How are you going to equip and maintain your 100,000 man army?

    1. Grey Knight, it’s interesting that you use the term knight in your name. If you were an actual knight, you would know that you and your commanding officer are on the same page, with the same goals, and you would probably willingly participate in making the necessary logistics happen. But in the present situation, instead of offering suggestions, you are asking me in doubt how I would pull that off.l, while you sit back in derision. I would suggest that there’s no need for me to answer you because of the nature and the doubtful basis of your question. But if I were to answer, I might refer to the hit-and-run nature of what I am suggesting, and the nature of that as virtually self funding.

      1. Modern war is not waged in the manner you imagine. You would need a governing apparatus, territory, a congress to raise funds. You would need a whole country to support 100,000 troops. And you would not last long equipped indifferently. Do you remember the Iraqi “highway of death.” You cannot wage a “hit and run” war against a country that has a modern air force. Where exactly did you study military science? What military training have you had? Go fight those windmills over there. Someone told me they are actually giants. Stick to windmills, man.

      2. Awe mockery; the domain of the sedentary!
        You are thinking in conventional terms, in the desert somewhere in a foreign land like Iraq during Desert Storm. Do you actually think the US Air Force is going to bomb us in Montana, in Wyoming, in Arizona, or where the hell ever? Do you think that they will send drones to raize residential buildings that house “domestic terrorists“ and at the same time standard citizens? You say that we have to win hearts and minds, but do you think the unjust government does not have to do the same thing? It is so clear that we would have the tactical advantage and the support of the citizens in time, but it’s amazing to me that you guys cannot see it, but choose instead to rest in doubt and in action. You do not embody in any way the American spirit! You choose instead to philosophize and speak of the intricacies of history, and yet you impact the current day in no perceivable way. Please, become part of the actual solution, or get out of the damn way!

      3. Robert Malins: there you go, trying to goad us into a civil war. You act just like an agent from a three letter agency trying to entrap us. I’m not going there, and I know Jeff won’t go there either. No amount of name calling by you is going to make us fly off the handle like the French knights at the Battle of Agincourt.

        If there’s a civil war, it needs to be started by the other side. As Robert Toombs, first secretary of state for the Confederacy said in 1861 that the side that shoots first loses the moral advantage. He opposed the South firing on Fort Sumter for that reason. In fact, had the Confederacy waited, they may have been able to negotiate a peaceful secession. But by firing first, that changed their actions from a legal question to an armed rebellion. An armed rebellion that Lincoln had the responsibility to crush.

        If you want to be productive, describe the scenarios in which we can recognize that the other side has fired first. Describe how that shows that they have fired first. Describe how we should respond to their shooting first. How is that appropriate action? Be realistic.

        No amount of insults and name calling by you is going to get us to act rashly.

    2. By the way, I am willing to commit $100,000 to this endeavor, and more as I am able in the future. 1,000 more equally contributing patriots will put us in the ball park. And there are a number of very wealthy patriots that can dwarf my contribution. $100 million will more than finance what is necessary should it become necessary in the future (hat tip Brandenburg)

      1. By the way, the left is highly intelligent as they position the rope around our necks. They will never fire the first shot. Have you never studied Democratic Socialism? They will simply propagandize the populace until they vote in the preponderance to enslave us. Then all the agencies come at once with the support of the electorate. And we will be forced to shoot to keep ourselves from being taken away. There is no “proper way” to keep from becoming Solzhenitsyn in a camp, wondering what might have happened if they would have fired first upon the secret police coming to imprison them. You wait; you are imprisoned, and you probably will die there. We will at some coming day have to fire first to stop our subjugation. The whole notion of “they must fire first in order for us to have the moral high ground” only applies if you want to resist without arms when they come and they simply shoot you. Then the only high ground you will occupy will be heaven. Let’s listen to Solzhenitsyn, who along with his prison mates rued the day when they did not resist with arms their attempted subjugation.

      2. You had better throw that money into political organizing; for that is the first thing you need. Yet I see no proper political leaders. Instead I see many who would take your money. We are too confused in our ideas to properly organize a movement let alone a war.

  10. It is with genuine irritation that I read Robert Malins posts, I’m sorry to say. No doubt everybody loves a good scrap, but everybody sane should also know that modern warfare is just refined butchery; no heroes, no cowards, just survivors and the dead. There’s no honor in it, so there’s no honor left that isn’t sullied by some unhinged soul’s cry for a modern war to happen. If it happens, I think maybe the parties involved in the struggle will have mutually stumbled into it by some terrible spiritual confusion on all sides.

    1. Vladimir, do you then, under the premise of your comments, consider the Civil War, WWII, and The War for Independence, to have been misguided ventures? If it is butchery that you object to, would the killing of one million Americans on both sides of an American civil war be of lesser or greater import than the 10,000,000 human souls butchered in the womb in the last decade that could have been prevented by the lesser loss of life? Or the millions of conservative Americans who will undoubtedly be marginalized, imprisoned, and ultimately killed as the left consolidates power? History tells us that in great conflicts killing happens. Wisdom is choosing where and how it occurs, making sure that it supports the cause of right, and then minimizing it when possible. But to think that winning is possible against a committed communist movement without force is ludicrous. Those who shy from the potential of it will actually ensure more continued killing—as is happening silently in the womb everyday—and new killing, of you and me, as the left solidifies their power.

      1. Robert Malins, you asked me, in response to my displayed irritation at your recent posts;

        ”Vladimir, do you then, under the premise of your comments, consider the Civil War, WWII, and The War for Independence, to have been misguided ventures?”

        I will answer you in this way; all modern war is becoming a misguided venture.Take the example I know well, Tsarist Russia entering WWI in 1914, a war which resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution, and beginning with WWI, the loss of at least 100 million Russian lives in the 20th century.

        ” If it is butchery that you object to, would the killing of one million Americans on both sides of an American civil war be of lesser or greater import than the 10,000,000 human souls butchered in the womb in the last decade that could have been prevented by the lesser loss of life?”

        I object to butchery of any kind, but the answer is not more butchery. Counter Revolution is the exact opposite of Revolution, White Terror does not replace Red Terror.

        ”Or the millions of conservative Americans who will undoubtedly be marginalized, imprisoned, and ultimately killed as the left consolidates power?”

        Who says that it will be the ”Left” in America that ”consolidates power”?

        ”History tells us that in great conflicts killing happens. Wisdom is choosing where and how it occurs, making sure that it supports the cause of right, and then minimizing it when possible.”

        History shows us that nobody is ever capable of being able to choose those factors or control all the variables.

        ”But to think that winning is possible against a committed communist movement without force is ludicrous.”

        Then call me ”ludicrous”, because that’s what we have actually done, more or less. Again, Counter Revolution is the opposite of Revolution in every way. You do not understand yourself, because you are a Jacobin on the ”Right”, differing very little from those of the ”Left”.

        ”Those who shy from the potential of it will actually ensure more continued killing—as is happening silently in the womb everyday—and new killing, of you and me, as the left solidifies their power.”

        There is no ”Left”,and there is no ”Right”, only ideologues and extremists versus realists and humanists.

  11. Robert Malins, your words are those of a fool. And I’ll tell you something, Mr. Nyquist is a true patriot.

    You think that drones wouldnt be used against people fighting the US govt? You think the airforce wouldnt bomb areas where there were insurgents? You think 100,000 men can just live off the land in this day when there is not near as much farming as there was in the Cvil War ir the War for Independence? What are they going to do, raid grocery stores?

    Usually, those who clamor the loudest for a fight, are the first ones to tuck tail and run when a fight starts. Didnt you learn anything among the boys on the playground in gradeschool?

    1. Robert Malins, GreyKnight is just my handle. It has some meaning to me, but doesn’t mean I think I’m an actual knight, lol

  12. Vladimir, I think so many talk, because they dont know what else to do. Talking confidently or strongly makes them feel in control in some measure, or makes them feel like things are going to work out the way they want them to.

    Some talk because they are trying to spread confusion.

    1. I suspect that you are right to a great degree Greynight. We would consider this a kind of weakness, akin to a person nervously whistling past a graveyard. There is much talk, but it must be intelligent talk, therefore less of it, and therefore sensible action.

  13. Vladimir, I only think that because I have been guilty of doing the same. I think it is human nature to a greater or lesser degree in people, and sometimes it takes an effort to refrain from boastful talking, or bravado.

    If Robert Malins is truly what he presents himself to be, then I indeed can sympathize with him, in that I too have felt desperation grab ahold of me, and an urgency that “we must do something before it’s too late!” However, I have grown out of giving into that sense urgency, that rashness. As many times as Nyquist has tried to get some sensible thoughts into his head, the man never seems to consider.

    1. Richard Weaver wrote: “After securing a place in the world from which to fight, we should turn our attention first to the matter of language.” Nothing can be done without the right words.

      1. I can understand and concur with this Mr. Nyquist. What would the correct words be as we head into a future fight? I have my own ideas, but what are yours? Elocution in the service of the correct moral and political philosophy was the main strength of the colonialist leaders, culminated in their fighting with the right moral force on their side. We ultimately need the same.

      2. Isn’t there a saying, “define your terms, or your enemy will define them for you”?

    2. I think part of it comes from the anxiety generated by the modern world we live in. Many people talk or write out of trying a diversion to express their anxiety. People also tend to like simple solutions and absolutes (”just shoot them all,jail them all!”), presented to and spoon fed to them, and regurgitated back to them, all very soothing but not necessarily productive.

    3. Grey Knight, if Mr. Nyquist’s words, brilliant as they are, had had any history of turning back the onslaught of the hard left, I would gladly acquiesce. But they haven’t as of yet, and I see no sign that this fortune is turning. So I stumble on looking for other answers. What “sensible thoughts” of his have had any measurable success to date? This post is sure to cause him offense, and spawn all manner of ad hominem in response, though I have utilized both his and Trevor’s fine work to develop my understanding and political context. I have even financially contributed to Mr.Loudon’s work for a couple of years in the past, and have called him and his wonderful wife my friends. But I ask it sincerely. Why would I follow Mr. Nyquist’s or Trevor Loudon’s advice, who has told me that his prediction is that there is a 2% chance of our national survival, and yet admonishes me not to ruin our “chances” with a potentially violent response? It is all lunacy. We need a new philosophical paradigm. That is why I needle such a fine intellectual as Mr. Nyquist to develop it. Yet he derides me in response, and probably now will ban me from his site in exasperation because I will not yield to that which has no demonstrable chance of success, and that relies upon uncertain and uncontrollable potential future occurrences for success. I am an entrepreneur, accustomed to setting goals, evaluating what can and cannot work, and forging a thought out path to success. I am seeking to do the same here. I have no personal history of violence; I have always been a lover and not a fighter. But I think the wind is blowing differently now…

  14. Mr. Nyquist, you asked me if the words are really ”soothing”,as opposed to them being actually true I suppose. I tend to believe that ”Right is Might”, rather than the reverse, and that Truth has a power that cannot be contained.

    But some men don’t want the truth

  15. Robert Malins, I sympathize with your desire to try to physically save our country. I used to feel exasperated thinking how time and events seem to be hurtling toward the doom of our country, and we are just sitting like the proverbial frog in hot water, until it is too late to jump out of the pot.

    I used to be a member of the League of the South, a group that desires for Southern states to secede again. I went to meetings, even at the capitol building in Montgomery where local tv news people were present, videoing us as we pledged allegiance to the Confederate flag, lol.

    But one day, it was like God told me, “You are advancing the wrong kingdom.” I realized the corruption and apathy all around me, and that even if by some miracle, the South could leave the US again, that it wouldnt work. Society is too corrupt, too morally bankrupt, no fear of God. I have realized the depths of that even more thanks to Mr. Nyquists hard, extremely hard, work.

    Just like the children of Israel in the Bible constantly turned away from God. He dealt directly with them, and they still would turn their backs on Him and go into national decline.

    So it will be in America if we cant wake the people up. Mr. Nyquist is right. People are not ready. On any level. At all.

    And I tend to agree with Vladimir’s and R.O.s line of thinking. If God’s hand of judgement is on this nation, we cant stop it.

    Not saying I wouldnt fight if it comes upon me. I will fight to defend myself and my loved ones. And to protect my area with surrounding neighbors. But I may not even get the chance.

    Also, society is so corrupt, and infiltrated by Communists that I would be leery of entrusting myself to some self proclaimed leader that I dont have a clue who he is. And that is another thing, if a war like you want to carry out begins, you are going to have a lot of petty infighting among various petty men to be the leaders. That’s why I think only very local defense among people who have lived and worked together for years is probably the biggest effort I would be a part of.

    I also wish you could see, that what Mr. Nyquist is doing here on this site, *is*fighting the enemy. In my opinion, it is the most effective form of fighting that can be done now. I really wish you would have the respect to quit badgering him all the time. If you want to organize a group to go “kinetic” as you say, then why not rest content with doing g that, and allowing Mr. Nyquist to fight in his way?

    1. Greynight wrote, “Also, society is so corrupt, and infiltrated by Communists that I would be leery of entrusting myself to some self proclaimed leader that I dont have a clue who he is.” Double that for me. When Trump ran in 2016, I voted against him in the primary. I was ready to do the same in 2020. I didn’t trust him, and still don’t.

      In relation to the subject of this thread, this article raises the possibility that Trump deliberately “lost” the 2020 election. That he had sabotaged the challenges to the election fraud. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-26-got-played-124-million-democrats-have-taken-trump-vaccines-what-happens-if-they-start-dying.html#

      For anyone who thinks that Trump is against the Swamp:


      Or for a slightly edited article but includes pictures, https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/is-all-hope-lost-for-those-who-still-believe-in-trump/

      If there’s a civil war and the sides are clear, then’s when it would make sense to join in. But more likely is the scenario as described by Selco Begovic in his articles at http://www.theorganicprepper.com

      Likewise, if an enemy invades, it is my duty to do what I can to oppose the invasion.

      Alexandr Solzhenitsyn described the regret of fellow prisoners about their lack of action, but was their proposed action realistic? Would that butcher in Moscow have hesitated to deploy the army to level any apartment complex that had taken such an action? Further, his description was specific to the Russian experience living in apartment complexes, how would the same idea work here in the States where most people live in detached houses where the three letter agencies can swoop in in their body armor and armored cars in the middle of the night, and be off with their victims before neighbors wake up?

      Finally, as a Christian, i take the long view—I’m but a soldier in God’s army. Soldiers are ordered into battle where they sometimes are captured and/or killed. If it is God’s plan that I be captured and sent to the gulag or lau gai, my job then will have changed from trying to warn people about the coming judgment yet God’s mercy, to teaching fellow prisoners God’s message. This is a battle dealing with eternity, where words are our main weapon. Nations come, become corrupt, and go, but the eternal battle remains the same.

Comments are now closed.