Maj William Fox, USMCR
Post Office Box 95
L.I.C., NY 11101
12 November 1990
Donald W. MacPherson, Esquire
MacPherson & McCarville, P.A.
3404 West Cheryl Drive, Suite A-250
Phoenix, Arizona 85051
Dear Mr. MacPherson:
It was a pleasure to speak with your legal assistant, Ms. Deborah Arthur, on November 8th. In accordance with her instructions, please find in enclosure (1) a consideration for your consultation.
A Board of Inquiry has been convened. This Inquiry will decide whether I should be retained in the Marine Corps Reserve based upon the content of my private conversations. These conversations were held in an off duty capacity and in virtually all cases in civilian attire. Three Marine Officers senior to myself will conduct this Inquiry. They will hear about my private expressions of conscience. They wili hear witness testimony about the apparent nature of my civilian political views. They will then decide whether or not I should be involuntarily separated from the Armed Forces of my country.
The current date of the Inquiry, which I am seeking to postpone to allow more time to prepare my defense and contact parties such as yourself, is 27 November 1990. I must approach you at this point, since I am convinced that I now have no choice but to evolve a strategy that requires sophisticated legal and political advice. This may include requesting support from civil liberties organizations and Congressional personnel.
I am using a very careful, systematic, and defensive approach in handling this case, and do not want any publicity unless it becomes a last resort that is forced upon me. I also request that for the time being, outside parties to the Marine Corps deal only with myself at (718) 729-1484 or my defense counsel, Capt Charles W. Tucker, USN, at (215) 897-6593.*
BASIS OF THE CHARGE:
Until the week of Oct 29-Nov 2, the representative of the Staff Judge Advocate for the Commanding General of the 4th Mar Division, Captain Rus Primeaux (also referred to as the Recorder for the Board of Inquiry), did not know what to charge me with based upon the alleged misconduct cited in enclosure (2). Finally he decided upon the broadest category possible: Article 133 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer."
I recollect from my notes that when my commanding officer, LtCo1 M. L. Ballard, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 (Intelligence), 4th Marine Division, first notified me of the alleged misconduct over the phone on 20 June 1990 (he could not see me in person because he works in New Orleans and I am based in New York), the Staff Judge Advocate worded the alleged misconduct to the effect that I had "promoted obnoxious ideology ... [that is] an embarrassment to the Marine Officer Corps ... " The Staff Judge Advocate subsequently reworded the allegation a few days later to produce the wording contained in enclosure (2).
In enclosure (3), my military counsel Captain Tucker responded to the alleged misconduct cited in enclosure (2) as well as to the inadequate investigation it was based upon by simply asking, "What did Major [then Captain] Fox do wrong?" Even if all of the items contained in Maj Arthur White's investigation were true in both fact and interpretation (and they very definitely are not in either case), the government still lacks a case under the First Amendment. To date, none of the government witnesses that Captain Tucker has spoken with have been able to "nail" me on any specific statements that I have made. Their entire case is built around perceived patterns of behavior evidenced under off duty, private circumstances that seem to possibly indicate disturbing interests and tendencies. There have been no racial confrontations or disciplinary incidents or complaints about my performance of duty while in a duty capacity.
It is perfectly legal and even healthy to be aware of and discuss matters that pertain to ones heritage, indigenous folkways, ancestral faith, and such scientific disciplines as sociobiology, anthropology, psychology, and genetics. The issues that I have raised in my private conversations are really only academic --both literally and figuratively. The crucial issue --the real issue-- in this case involves protecting freedom of speech and thought for Marines and developing greater awareness among Marine commanders, Staff Judge Advocates, and public affairs personnel that this is a vital element that must be protected at all costs (in addition to everything else they swear to uphold in the Constitution of the United States) in order for the Marine Corps to adapt to an increasingly uncertain future and make wise contributions towards the security of this country.
Speaking in very general terms, and not necessarily about any particular officers involved in this case, we simply can not allow a trend to occur in which Marine officers begin to behave like the proverbial emperor who lopped off the heads of all messengers with disagreeable tidings. This is an utterly irrational and cowardly way to handle any new or disturbing information. No organization that becomes this irrational can survive for long. Nor can we allow the presentation of distasteful information in private conversations to automatically generate officer vs. officer shark feeding frenzies to see who can "turn in" and "discredit" the bearer of the "thought crime" the fastest. To permit this to happen in the Marine Corps would risk allowing a slide of the organization into moral chaos and jungle savagery. Such a trend would ultimately become downright repugnant, if not dangerous, to the best interests of' the American people. In addition to alienating and squandering the kind of talent that the Marine Corps and indeed the American people need to survive and stay competitive, this kind of dark, irrational trend could ultimately spread widely or reinforce similar trends elsewhere to destroy the very foundations of Western Civilization upon which the Constitution was built.
SUMMARY OF MY DEFENSE
I tend to shy away from "advocating" any particular ideology as The Truth. Instead, I prefer to simply offer new ideas while using a scientific approach for finding truth. This requires the collection of a wide variety of ideas from many different viewpoints as a necessary first step for rational data collection. I then analyze the data through the use of logic and let the chips fall where they may to create my hypotheses. To test these hypotheses, I am not afraid to keep digging deeper and use unusual source material. I am not afraid to continually refine my hypotheses and am always open to new ideas or criticism from other people.
I tend to avoid using certain "color words" such as "white supremacy" or " pro-Aryan" or " purity of race." This Hollywood movie language can induce misconceptions in intended audiences even when people try to address scientific issues. Using different language, I feel perfectly free to discuss in an academic manner ideas stemming from such disciplines as physiological anthropology, sociobiology, history, political science, and comparative religion. While I am willing to try to work around people's misconceptions and ignorance to avoid creating unnecessary problems, I refuse to become intellectually brain dead and incommunicado in an effort to play totally safe.
I am reluctant to use the term "superiority", particularly in very general terms, since this connotes a value judgement; instead I prefer to use the term "adapted" to characterize the way in which the distributions of innate traits in particular gene pools may have become sculptured in particular ways based upon various geographic and climatic factors. If I use the word "superior," it is usually meant in the sense of "more than" regarding highly specific and measurable traits, such as the percentage of frontal lobe volume relative to the rest of brain mass, total cranial capacity in cubic centimeters, the density of cerebral folding per unit surface area, the percentage per thousand of skin cancer cases given equivalent solar radiation exposures for different racial groups, abstract intelligence differences as measured by such allegedly "culture fair" tests as Raven's Progressive Matrices, and so on. In regard to the various types of studies that I have just referred to, I do not always suggest that any particular study is necessarily conclusive or even statistically significant.
A world with no new ideas or without free communication would ultimately become even more dangerous than one in which "dangerous ideas" can be discussed openly. I was raised in the home of a college professor and simply have too much ivy in my blood to compromise the spirit of free inquiry. As noted in enclosure (1), that spirit helped me to become a Phi Beta Kappa with a psychology degree from the University of Southern California and subsequently earn an MBA with Second Year Honors at the Harvard Business School. I perceive in my opposition the very antithesis of this spirit.
The cited literature about the "browning of America" pertains to a direct quote from the 9 April 1990 Time Magazine cover story titled "America's Changing Colors: What Will the U.S. Be Like When Whites Are No Longer the Majority." Did you ever think you would see the day in America when demonstrating an awareness of a Time magazine feature would provide a basis for a military Board of Inquiry?
The basis for the reference to "anti-Semitic ideology" is unclear to me, since I have never considered my discussion of such books as They Dare to Speak Out by former Congressman Paul Findley or Assault on the Liberty: The True Stor.v of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship by former U.S. Naval officer James Ennes to comprise a coherent ideological statement or worldview in and of themselves. Lawrence Hill Books classifies Mr. Findley's book as "Government and Politics." The Random House catalog classifies Mr. Ennes' book as "non-fiction." I have never seen these books classified as "anti-Semitic ideology" by either Lawrence Hill or Random House. The allegation also fails to recognize the successful working relationships that I have experienced with Jewish people on numerous occasions.
The reference to "racial ideology" probably pertains to an October 1960 Mankind Quarterly article that I offered titled "Zoological 'Subspecies in Man." The suggestion that a serious scientific work in an eminent international anthropological journal, founded in Edinburgh, Scotland, that covers such academic disciplines as genetics, sociobiology, zoology, and cultural and physiological anthropology can be simply labeled and dismissed as "racist ideology" is highly repugnant to me.
The Odinist publications that I provided can be more accurately described as religious/philosophical material. The reference to "racial ideology" is also misleading to the extent that it fails to recognize my profound appreciation and respect for the cultures of other peoples. I certainly expressed this sentiment when I spent over $40,000 of my own money to create a documentary about Native Hawaiians in a project that lasted from 1981 to 1986.
The "magazine articles" cited in the allegation consisted of three Noontide Press fliers authored by Dr. Robert Faurisson, Mark Weber, and Theodore O'Keefe. These materials do not question the existence of gas chambers as much as analyze evidence regarding their use. The authors claim that their principal use was for delousing clothing rather than for executions, and that there exists evidence and lines of analysis that call for a new look at various aspects of the Holocaust history. Their views are now supported by the widely published historian David Irving.
I do not "advocate" various revisionist views. I have simply suggested that it is quite fascinating to. become aware of these views from the standpoint of the right to know and the right to study such areas as propaganda analysis. Although the Institute for Historical Review, located in Costa Mesa, California is considered controversial by various elements in our society, its annual conferences have attracted eminent historians. The October 13-14, 1990 Institute for Historical Review Conference held in Washington, D.C. attracted such speakers as the Pulitzer Prize winning author John Toland and the widely published author David Irving.
Interestingly enough, a number of Jewish scholars have also become Holocaust revisionists. The article "Auschwitz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar's Case" (New York Times, 12 Nov 1989) mentions how Dr. Yehuda Bauer, Director of the Division of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Institute of Contemporary Jewry, says that the four million figure for Auschwitz is wrong; the real number was less than half of that. In addition to the New York Times, various American media sources ranging from American Atheist to Christian News (the entire May 7, 1990 issue) have carried revisionist stories within the last year. Dr. Madalyn O'Hair wrote in "The Shoah: Hope Springs Eternal" (American Atheist, Aug 1989, p. 36) the following:
...When the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, a nondenominational institution created by Congress in 1980, wanted definite statistics concerned with deaths in concentration camps, it went to [Raul] Hilberg [professor of history at the University of Vermont and author of The Destruction of the European Jews]. Hilberg now estimates that the number of Jews who died in Europe, from whatever cause, during the period of persecution was 1,003,392. The World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation puts the figure at 1,593,292...
Incidentally, in my present reserve capacity, I have been involved in learning about ideology and Psychological Operations for professional military purposes. I was in fact tasked by the commanding officer at Coronado with writing the PSYOPS order for the staff planning course. While I feel strong humanitarian instincts and deplore any loss of life by any people, from an intellectual viewpoint and from the viewpoint of studying PSYOPS, the aforementioned revisionist stories are quite significant, whether they are true or not, in terms of their impact on public perceptions.
In a past reserve capacity as a Joint Public Affairs Officer in June 1985, I delivered routine morning briefs to the Commanding General at Central Command on all significant news breaking from the Middle East, regardless of the source. I was supposed to simply report the news and not try to edit out sources that sounded false or propagandistic. Media coming out of such places as the Soviet Union, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were fair game. To a large extent I have simply continued to report interesting media stories that I become aware of in a similar vein, and leave it to each individual that I speak with to make his or her own judgements.
I did indeed encourage a fellow Norwegian-American, Major Michelle Krause, to increase her knowledge of "Odinism" or Asatru by handing her copies of a publication called The Odinist. This happened to be the only Odinist publication that I had on hand and is by no means definitive of Asatru thought; in retrospect her reaction may have been different if I had handed her different Asatru publications such as Northways (published by a Texas kindred), Vor Tru (Arizona kindred), OR Briefing (English kindred), Ancestral Faith (Colorado kindred), or Huginn and Muninn (published by an Icelandic kindred and named after two ravens who reconnoiter for Odin). Different groups have different styles and interpretations. I do not necessarily endorse any one of them since I am continuing to evolve in my knowledge and understanding of Asatru. Unfortunately Major Krause never bothered to get back to me to find out about other Asatru publications and interpretations.
Asatru is specifically mentioned as the pagan religion of my Viking ancestors by the eminent Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson in his book Viking: Hammer of the North. Asatru never completely died out in Iceland, and is now legally recognized as a religion that can conduct binding marriages not only in Iceland, but also in England and numerous states in America. Asatru stems from the kind of rich literature and folkways that I was exposed to at an early age by my Norwegian mother. Her father, who was a Captain in the Norwegian Merchant Fleet, signed and gave to me as a gift a copy of the Heimskringla (the Saga of the Viking Kings of Norway) when I was quite young. I have treasured it ever since, and I deeply resent cussedly ignorant people who seek to vilify my heritage and defame my people and their folkways. This to me is a form of ugly anti-Nordicism and shows great disrespect and contempt for the Nordic peoples and Nordic cultures of Scandinavia.
Nowhere in the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, Heimskringla, Icelandic saga literature, or other Asatru sources do you find specific instructions to maintain "purity of race". [Editor's note in 2009: While technically true, on a broader level this is perhaps at best a half truth. The old Norse literature tends to be light on direct racial commentary for the simple reason that the Norse evolved in racially homogeneous societies where intermixture with other races had not yet become a major issue. As they say, "Out of sight, out of mind." However, Asatru does acknowledge the importance of heredity in passing along family characteristics, to include the hamingja and other spiritual as well as temporal character traits. Furthermore, the Indo-European siblings of the old Norse, known to historians as the ancient "Aryans" who settled in present day Pakistan and India between the first and second millenia B.C., became very race-conscious. They instituted within early Hinduism the varna or caste system. "Varna" means "color," as in racial color.]. There is no centralized Asatru authority that proclaims "purity of race" dogma. All of the legally recognized Asatru organizations in Iceland, England, and the United States have different views on this topic. In contrast to this, I can show numerous directives designed to prevent racial/tribal assimilation or intermarriage in the Old Testament. Logically speaking, the Marine Corps would have to persecute people who take the Old Testament as divine inspiration before it would have reason to come after me for my interest in the literature and religion of my ancestors.
Contrary to the allegation that my conversations were made while on duty and in civilian attire, my conversations with Maj. Krause and Maj. Davies were made in off duty one-on-one situations, not overheard by others, in civilian attire, and both individuals were senior to me in rank at the time. The civilian attire and one-on-one elements are actually technicalities, since I believe that I could have a perfectly defensible private conversation in uniform while eating lunch or having a beer at an officer's club in the presence of other officers at a table. In fact, in a very theoretical sense I believe that I could have a private conversation while on duty and in uniform speaking to several people who are junior to me so long as I can prove that everyone understood my views to be my own and in no way reflective of official Marine Corps or Department of Defense policy, to include any civilians or military personnel who could happen by to overhear the conversation, and furthermore that this behavior would not become unfavorably linked with standard Marine Corps leadership practices or result in discriminatory treatment. The problem is that each time an element gets added to the situation that involves the Marine Corps, government business, a command relationship, or some other official "prop", the harder my defense becomes against anyone who might try to build a case against me, particularly if they try to stretch their case by fabricating disinformation. I believe that the circumstances behind my private conversations with Maj. Krause and Maj. Davies were about as clean as they can possibly come in the realm of First Amendment rights for a military reservist.
KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESSES FOR THE INITIAL CASE
The government has indicated to Captain Tucker that it will produce three witnesses who were present during the 1 to 14 April period at Coronado: Major Michelle Krause, Major John Davies, Captain Ray Tye.
My alleged misconduct involving Maj. Michelle Krause occurred on Saturday in the early afternoon while off duty between the first and second week of the two week Coronado course cited in enclosures (2) and (3). I mentioned to her the night before in a social setting that I wanted to invite her out for dinner at the Hotel Coronado the following day to discuss our shared Norwegian-American heritage. I have belonged to Norwegian and Scandinavian organizations for years and -have developed a strong interest in preserving the culture, religion, and folkways of our people as well as making contacts within the Norwegian-American community. Among other things, based upon demographic and reproductive rate studies, I am aware that we are a dying people, and I believe that any people should have the right to discuss issues among themselves, particularly in the context of private conversations, that involve their identity, cohesion, social values, religious beliefs, and other factors that affect their survival as a people. Norwegian-Americans are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States the same rights of freedom of speech and peacable assembly and other measures that facilitate their basic survival that are enjoyed by other ethnic or racial groups in America. My conversations with Maj. Krause comprised Norwegian-American business, not Marine Corps business.
Although Maj. Krause declined my dinner invitation the following day, she did accept my materials that were intended to stimulate further discussion. In a conversation that lasted only a matter of minutes, I offered her a Time Magazine article, two issues of The Odinist, and a "' Mankind Quarterly article titled "Zoological Subspecies in Man" that contradicted some assumptions made in the Time article. The Time article had appeared on the news stands only two days before, and I had brought the other articles to share with a business school classmate who I met following day. I simply represented that I found the existence of Asatru to be a fascinating discovery, and wanted to share it along with some other interesting stuff. She accepted the materials without complaint. She never raised the subject matter with me the remaining week that we worked together in a professional capacity, nor did I bring the matter up. She did, however, play a major role in instigating this entire affair when she returned to Headquarters Marine Corps, where she works as a reservist serving on a multi-year period of active duty.
My alleged misconduct involving Major John Davies occurred while sitting by him in civilian attire on a flight from San Diego headed towards our homes in New York state. He currently commands a Stamford Connecticut-based Marine reserve unit. In my first contact with him while at the school, I learned that he works in asset management at IBM and has been involved in productivity studies. I gave him a copy of a Harvard Business School study titled "U.S. Competitiveness In the World Economy: An Update" by Professors Bruce Scott and Paul Cherington. It begins with the sentence, "The U.S. has been in competitive decline since the mid-1960's; continuing decline can be expected until major economic policy and institutional changes are made."
When we fortuitously met on the flight from San Diego, the Harvard study became the first item of discussion. The conversation then wandered into numerous other directions. He claimed that his father is a Christian minister, so we spent some time discussing theories regarding the origins of the Old and New Testament. Since he seemed to already be well-informed in the theology department, and was very much aware of my interest in propaganda based upon my PSYOPS brief provided on the last day of the Coronado course to the class, I thought I could offer him something really interesting in the revisionist history area. I gave him a Noontide Press catalog and revisionist fliers at a later point in our conversation, along with an address list of "propaganda sources" from both ends of the spectrum that I have found useful in my study of ideology. He thanked me for my materials and gave no indication that he thought that the conversation or the materials were inappropriate.
My alleged misconduct regarding Captain Ray Tye was reported to Captain Tucker as follows: He said that he was surprised that I knew Tye was a Scandinavian name [actually I guessed that it was German]. He said that I gave him an article from Newsweek that said that whites will become a minority in America. He responded, "Who cares, as long as immigrants are making a contribution to America?" Capt Tye said that I was not proselytizing about religion. My contact with him was limited to only a few brief conversations. He felt that I was concerned that whites are no longer in control. Capt Tye said that as long as nonwhites do good work, he could care less whether they are purple with polka dots. He read the articles that I gave to Maj Krause. An article in one of the publications particularly bothered her. According to Captain Tye it was about a group of Scandinavians who went to Nepal. The article indicated that they lost their purity when they inbred and this led to their loss of power.
The article that Captain Tye has referred to was the 9 April 1990 Time feature that came out while we were in school, "America's Changing Colors: What Will America Be Like When Whites Are No Longer the Majority?" I have had numerous experiences in the Marine Corps in which articles fresh off the news stands have been spontaneously photocopied and circulated among a limited number of people for comment. While with the New York Public Affairs MTU, this was a rather frequent occurrence. In fact, my unit accumulated large batches of articles on a variety of controversial issues in preparation for the hot seat interviews that I helped to conduct. One of our areas of focus involved articles about racial issues. All that I did was hand the article to Captain Tye for his comment, and did not editorialize on it myself. Apparently generating awareness of certain Time Magazine cover stories now constitutes a form of "thought crime."
The second article that he saw, passed on to him through Major Krause and hence not intended for him by myself, was titled "Lost Cousins" and comprises only two and a half pages of print out of the ten page, 1986 issue No. 103 of The Odinist. It is about an Indo-European people called Kafirs, the inspiration behind Rudyard Kipling's story The Man Who Would Be King, who are represented by the Odinist writer as "the diluted remnants of one branch of our people that strayed into this part of Asia [the Afghan province of Nuristan] four to five millennia ago" ["one branch of our people" is not the same as "Scandinavians"]. They were documented by the Englishman Sir George Robinson in his visits from 1889 to 1891, just before the Kafirs became forcefully converted to Islam as a result of a "Jihad" waged against them between 1895 to 1898 by the Emir of Afghanistan. According to the Odinist writer, by 1890 the Kafirs were already racially mixed, hopelessly outnumbered by neighboring Moslems, and had only the vaguest idea of where their Indo-European ancestors had migrated from. Nevertheless, they still retained important remnants in their customs and religion that stemmed from their Indo-European ancestors, to include even genetic reminders consisting of occasional individuals with golden blond hair and white skin. The Odinist author goes on to mention that today virtually all of these remnants have disappeared, and that the descendants of the people described by Sir George are now being oppressed by darker-skinned Muslims. Based upon photos taken by a National Geographic correspondent in 1981, the Odinist author concludes that the Kafirs no longer even appear physically very distinct from surrounding Muslim tribes.
There is a lot of descriptive data in the article, and the thesis is a bit more complicated than Captain Tye's interpretation. For starters, it simply alludes to OUTbreeding between competing Kafir and Afghan tribes, not INbreeding within the Kafir tribe, as Captain Tye misinterprets the article. The article does not explain the author's concept of cause and effect relationships that would help to explain his concern for some of the possible consequences of outbreeding between different peoples. To really be able to read between the lines, one needs to read a lot of back issues of The Odinist as well as various anthropological, religious, and politically-oriented works that attempt to discuss the interactions of culture, politics, religion, and genetics. There are various consequences associated with both inbreeding and outbreeding, all of which relate to situational factors. This is something that can be discussed on an academic level.
A complete "systems approach" that integrates both culture and genetics is currently in vogue by a growing number of scientists, not the least of whom are sociobiologists and/or contributors to such publications as Mankind Quarter. Scientists who take a purely environmental approach have grown tired of repeatedly reaching intellectual dead-ends over the last few decades, much like the Church theologians who finally grew tired of very convoluted and tedious theories that tried to reconcile physical observations with their "certain knowledge" that the earth was flat and lay at the center of the solar system.
U.S. News and World Report published "The Gene Factor" (13 April 1987 issue) that claims that it is now the consensus of scientists that human behavior is more genetic than environmental. Time Magazine published "Why You Do What You Do: Sociobiology, A New Theory of Behavior" (August 1, 1977) that discusses the rapid growth of the sociobiological viewpoint in the scientific community. As additional evidence of the growing influence of biologically-based ideas, The New York Times printed the article "Professors' Theories on Race Stir Turmoil at City College" (April 20, 1990) in which it discussed how a philosophy professor, Dr. Michael Levin [the article did not specifically state Dr. Levin's ethnic background but seemed to allude to it by mentioning that a large number of faculty are Jewish], and an African-American professor, Dr. Leonard Jeffries, Jr., now find the evidence for genetics so overwhelming that they are willing to risk hindrances to their careers by discussing racially-oriented ideas in their classrooms at City College in New York City, one of the more liberal institutions in the country.
The intellectual tide is clearly turning. I am just a little bit more perceptive than most people in discerning these trends and a little bit more active in my discussion of them. My ideas will inevitably become more widely shared by the mainstream, perhaps as early as five to ten years from now. In some countries a number of my ideas are already widely known even though they are still not so well known in America. Conversely, many of the views of my opponents will begin to appear increasingly foolish and self-defeating over time, much as the Creationist views expressed by William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey Trials in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 have fallen out of favor. (Please note however that even though I disagree with Creationism, I am willing to be respectful of a fellow Marine who espouses Creationist views, and certainly would never try to instigate proceedings against him, especially not of the extreme type that have been targeted at myself). By siding with the purely environmental views espoused by some of my opponents, the Marine Corps is siding with dinosaurs headed for extinction and is truly fighting a wasteful and losing battle. In fact, this is not even a battle the Marine Corps needs to get itself involved in, to the extent that it can always simply drop this case by citing the First Amendment and get on with other business.
I do not necessarily share the value judgements made by the Odinist writer, but find the story both interesting and sadly familiar, having created a documentary about Native Hawaiian cultural and ancestral survival issues. The television miniseries Roots was concerned with cultural and ancestral survival issues involving African-Americans. The issues involving the Kafirs are really the same as those involving Native Hawaiians and African-Americans, all we have done is simply substituted a different racial/ethnic group as the victim group. I approach these kinds of articles by looking for the commonalities, and am willing to understand the feelings of writers who may wish to sympathize with any particular group, to include the Kafirs, Native Hawaiians, or African-Americans, even if I detect a strong sentiment that favors the cultural and ancestral survival of a particular group in the face of oppression and subjugation. I certainly detected this kind of sympathetic sentiment in Alex Haley's work The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I understand Haley's sentiment, and I certainly would not condemn any African-American Marine officer who might strongly sympathize with such a book and even pass on copies to other officers for their edification and comment. I certainly would not try to launch the same Inquiry process against him that has been launched against me; to the contrary, I have always felt flattered when people have cared enough about me to offer me new ideas. All I ask from other ethnic groups is the same respect for my group that I have been willing to show for their groups.
TWO GOVERNMENT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ADDED AT A LATE DATE TO AGGRAVATE MY CASE
After making a thorough review of my case by early October 1990, my defense counsel, Captain Tucker, sent enclosure (3) to the Commanding General of the 4th Marine Division for the reasons that I have already mentioned. He also vigorously sought to informally meet in person to explain the situation to MajGen Cooper, 4th Marine Division Commanding Officer and the convening authority behind this investigation, and BGen Miller, the Staff Judge Advocate for the Marine Corps at Headquarters Marine Corps.
The appeals for informal contact were rebuffed. Captain Primeaux intensified his efforts to probe for more potentially damaging information on me. As a consequence of his efforts and the efforts of Major White, a significant number of the people who I have worked with in the Marine Corps over the last five years have been notified that I am under investigation and have been probed for any "strange ideas" that I may have offered them in my private conversations. In the week of Oct 29-Nov 2, Capt Primeaux informed Captain Tucker that he had found two more government witnesses and that the Board of Inquiry was still a "go."
IT NOW APPEARS THAT AN FBI AGENT HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY THE "' RECORDER TO TRY TO DESTROY MY CAREER BASED UPON PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ISRAEL-RELATED TOPICS:
(a) Capt Dan Gorman, an FBI agent, who works for Maj John Davies in his Stamford, Connecticut-based Marine reserve unit, is the first of the two new witnesses. Capt Gorman claims that I handed him some fliers on 6 October 1989 that he found distasteful and "anti-Semitic." He informed Captain Tucker that he threw them away. He claims that he considered this an informal matter and so he did not make out an FBI report. In other words, the matter is serious enough in the eyes of Capt Gorman to try to use it destroy the career of a Marine Major, but not serious enough to fill an FBI report or save any of the documents that I handed to him to use as evidence.
According to my notes, on 4 October 1989 I had a private conversation with Capt Gorman and another special agent, John M. Anticev, while in civilian attire. John Anticev discussed how he had been tasked with interviewing Henry Kissinger as part of a standard routine to determine loyalty to America and conflicts of interest. I casually asked Mr. Anticev if he had asked Mr. Kissinger about the Lavon Affair (the Mossad attack on a USIA facility in the early 1950's in Cairo disguised as an Egyptian action) or the incidents described in the books Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship by former U.S. Naval Officer James Ennes or They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by former Congressman Paul Findley. I got the impression that Mr. Anticev was not quite as well read in these areas as myself, and as a fellow American sworn to uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, I am always happy to discreetly raise awareness of important issues, particularly since these matters are entirely relevant to Mr. Anticev's duties, and furthermore because I believe that plain ignorance is one of the greatest causes of some of America's biggest problems.
Mr. Anticev gave me his card, and I believe that I volunteered to pass on information about this topic to him. I have definitely shown a willingness to share information with other agents. As an example, at the 12 October 1989 meeting of my former public affairs reserve unit, I met agents Jeffrey S. Pfeifer and Robert O. Laughlin who attended for the first time. In a subsequent meeting, I recollect passing on a copy of my PSYOPS package to Mr. Pfeifer that I made available to many members in the New York MTU in an effort to obtain feedback for possible instruction during the next Commander's Media Training Symposium held every October. [Editor's Note by William Fox:: I was simply explaining various parts of the U.S. Army PSYOPS manual fm 33-1, which is a declassified document available on the Internet to the general public. In particular, I was making the point that PSYOP propaganda techniques covered in this manual are nothing more than consciously exploiting fallacies usually identified in college informal logic courses. I also pointed out that while it is officially illegal for U.S. media to PSYOP the American public, we have two huge industries that routinely do it every day: Madison Avenue, and major national media beholden to Madison Avenue and other special interests. If you want to protect yourself against getting "PSYOPed," it helps to become consciously aware of informal logical fallacies, and also understand the special interests behind the scenes in American politics.]. I think that I also gave to Mr. Pfeifer a copy of the aforementioned Scott and Cherington Harvard Business School report about America's declining competitiveness. In my notes I am aware that I spoke about Paul Findley's book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby to both Mr. Pfeifer and Mr. Laughlin, but I recollect that I never sent them any fliers or literature on it.
Until Captain Tucker informed me of Capt Gorman's testimony on 2 November 1990, no FBI personnel ever said anything negative to me about my informational services, with the sole exception of Dan Gorman's "bear trap" comment mentioned later. This includes Mr. Jim Kallstrom, head of FBI Special Operations in New York, who is the boss of Capt Gorman. I spoke with Mr. Kallstrom over the phone in December 1989 about the Marine Sniper film project that I was working on in behalf of Bill Henderson, also mentioned later. [Editor's 2009 Note: James Kallstrom subsequently received national attention when he hosted the FBI Files, investigated the TWA Flight 800 crash, and served as Former Director, Office of Public Security for State of New York].
A lot of Marine officers become FBI agents, and the Marine Corps and FBI enjoy cordial relations through such organizations as the FBI-Marine Corps Association. The FBI relies very heavily on the goodwill of the American public for leads in catching criminals, and it seems inconceivable to me that any upright FBI agent would want to punish me for passing on to him materials, particularly if it involves an exercise of free speech in a private conversation about a matter that bothers my conscience as an American citizen. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by former Congressman Paul Findley shocks my conscience and gravely concerns me as an American citizen more than any other book that I have read in years.
I assumed that because the "cat was out of the bag" in my conversation with Mr. Anticev, that Dan Gorman was not only aware of our conversation, but would appreciate any additional information that I could provide. It is my style, whenever I introduce an unusual topic in a private conversation, to back it up with documentation that establishes my credibility and allows a person to continue their private research of the topic on their own. On 6 October 1989 I had in my possession photocopied covers to the two books Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship and They Dare To Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, as well as a copy of a 12 November 1985 Village Voice article titled "Israel's Jewish Terrorists" about militant groups intent, among other things, upon some day blowing up the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the one of the holiest shrines in Islam, in order to rebuild the Temple. I intended to pass these materials on to Mr. Anticev directly or through Capt Gorman; my consciousness of these topics and desire to carry these papers had certainly been stimulated by the prior conversation.
I met Capt Gorman by chance on the street on October 6th in midtown Manhattan while we were both in civilian attire, and said, "This is what I was talking about when I spoke with you and your partner earlier. This documents what I described, and passing this on to you and your partner here would certainly save mailing costs." After I offered him the papers, I mentioned that I would be happy to meet him and his partner for a beer some time. His comment to me was, "Don't be too condescending, you might get bear-trapped" [referring to a baiting technique used by reporters to trick people into making embarrassing statements]. I interpreted his comment as an attempt to show his disinterest in the topic as well as to try to intimidate me, so I said nothing further and left.
The only other contact that I can recollect occurred months later when Capt Gorman was present at a reserve meeting in which I announced that I had picked up extra copies of the FMFM-1 Warfighting Manual during a recent trip to Headquarters Marine Corps. He requested that I mail to him some copies. I carried out his request with a cover letter dated 10 December 1989 directed to his boss, Mr. Jim Kallstrom, head of FBI Special Operations, in which I requested that he pass on the enclosed books to his subordinate as a sideline to the main purpose of the letter, which involved the Marine Sniper movie project.
Bill Henderson later claimed that he had a conversation with Capt Gorman in which he was irate about the way in which I had chosen to send the field manuals to him through his boss. A credible source has informed me that according to Capt Primeaux, Capt Gorman said that I tried to impersonate Capt Gorman to get through to Kallstrom on the day that I had my phone conversation with him. Although this story is hearsay, if in fact Capt Gorman said this, it is utterly ridiculous, since I already had the "pull" of Bill Henderson's name and the topic "Marine Sniper" to get through to Mr. Kallstrom. I have requested that Captain Tucker contact Mr. Kallstrom to discuss this story and obtain additional details.
Capt Gorman claims that I had additional conversations with him in which I made statements about "Eisenhower Death Camps [Disarmed Enemy Forces]" and how "the Jews control the media", and of course all of this struck him as "anti-Semitic." But this is all very misleading. I have at times cited the academic studies by Professors S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, such as "Media and Business Elites" published in the Oct/Nov 1981 issue of Public Opinion and "Hollywood and America: The Odd Couple" published in the Dec/Jan 1983 issue. These articles, published by the highly reputable American Enterprise Institute, provide statistical measures of media influence based on a variety of criteria, including religion and ethnicity. In regard to Capt Gorman's area of concern, according to the "Hollywood and America" article, 59% of the television elite was raised in the Jewish religion.
I typically cite specific studies that provide specific statistics about specific aspects of the media (eg. print media as opposed to electronic media) rather than making sweeping statements about how one group or another "controls everything." I recognize that elites have tended to form in virtually all modern societies, regardless of the particular political or social system involved. Rather than place a value judgement on the influence of particular elites, I tend to be more likely to either leave it to each listener to draw his or her own conclusions, or simply describe the likely consequences of various types of control without necessarily indicating that they are "good" or "bad". The term "control" is itself slippery, to the extent that it can range from simple veto power or "sentry post" intelligence gathering through proxies to proactive policy creation power or even outright monopoly. The Securities and Exchange Commission has disclosure and filing requirements at the 5% and 10% level in stock ownership, although other facts must be weighed to establish "control." A good example involving my former place of work was reported in the Time Magazine article "The Man Who Captured CBS" (22 September 1986). Mr. Laurence Tisch beat out a number of corporate raiders and gained control by purchasing only 24.9% of CBS stock in 1986. The next largest shareholder, William Paley [also Jewish], who is the founder of the company, holds 8.1%.
In regard to the Eisenhower story, I have discussed in some very limited instances the book Other Losses by Canadian author James Bacque who claims that Eisenhower deliberately withheld food from German P.O.W.s (who he allegedly reclassified as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" to get around the Geneva Convention) near the end of World War II and the months afterwards, causing over 960,000 to needlessly die. This book was reviewed in a 2 Oct 1989 Time Magazine article. I have always viewed Bacque's account as highly conjectural, just like I view any account which I have not completely verified with other sources. I did not become aware of the story until weeks after my frosty 6 October encounter with Gorman, and certainly felt no urge to discuss anything else with him ever since that meeting, so it is very strange to me that he is now claiming that I have been promoting "Eisenhower Death Camp" stories.
IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE RECORDER IS ENCOURAGING A SERGEANT TO TRY TO DISCREDIT A MARINE MAJOR BASED UPON WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE SOCIALLY "INSENSITIVE" BEHAVIOR
(b) Sergeant Manny Pacheco, who works in the Marine Corps Public Affairs Office in New York City, is the second of the two new witnesses brought forth by the Recorder. He claims that he has become aware that I have "unusual ideas" on four occasions:
(1) 13 January 1989. After taking my photo for a Marine Corps application, I got into a private conversation with Sgt Pacheco in which I discussed the need to read books vice trusting only television. I mentioned how some surprisingly provocative material is openly available in major bookstores, it is just that too few Americans are heavy consumers of books like myself. According to Sgt Pacheco, I spoke with him for a long time about the financial system in America. He reported to Captain Tucker that he found my conversation "fascinating". I recollect that this conversation was prompted by my mention of the New York Times best-seller Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country by former Assistant Washington Post Managing Editor William Greider. This is an example of an innocuous-looking book openly sold in bookstores that has some profound information tucked inside its covers. I had just finished reading parts of this book as well as parts of Free to Choose by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, hence financial matters were fresh on my mind.
(2) Friday night, 29 September 1989: I and Warrant Officer Charles "Bill" Henderson, a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant named Ed Dennison who works for the Chicago White Sox, and Sgt Pacheco were in civilian attire at an Irish Pub, drinking beer, eating supper, and listening to an Irish band. According to Sgt Pacheco I made comments about the impact of uncontrolled Third World immigration on the future of the United States. Sgt Pacheco recollects that at some point the retired GySgt made a disparaging comment about my alleged immigration views [I do not remember any such comment. Bill Henderson and the retired Gunnery Sergeant told Captain Tucker they they do not remember any such comment either]. Although Sgt Pacheco did not hear me say anything specific that sounded anti-black or anti-Jewish (eg. he admits that he never heard any specific comments about "hating Jews" or "hating blacks") he nevertheless claims that he got an "impression" that I may lean in that direction deep down inside.
My version is as follows: Bill Henderson invited me to come and have a beer with him to discuss my potential role in helping him raise funds to turn his best selling book Marine Sniper into a movie, given my real estate investor contacts and media experience with CBS and my filmmaking experience with my Native Hawaiian documentary. Sgt Pacheco and the retired GySgt happened to be along. Bill and I had a long business conversation in which I took over two pages of notes about the structure of possible financial and distribution deals. (On 15 October 1989 Bill Henderson wrote a letter authorizing me to function as an agent, and later I created a Proposed Film Treatment that I sent to prospective investors). We ordered supper, had a good time, and I even stood up a number of times and asked the band to play songs like A Nation Once Again. Towards the end of the evening, Sgt Pacheco, who is of Portuguese descent, introduced the topic of reverse discrimination when he mentioned how a white friend of his on the police force had suffered from it. I distinctly recollect that my response was deliberately rhetorical and Socratic --"What can you do about it? --You tell me." I mentioned this many times. Sgt Pacheco is apparently mixing together my interest in Irish fight songs with my Socratic questions to come up with something else that simply did not exist that night.
(3) 16 December 1989. Marine Corps Combat Correspondent's Association meeting held at Sgt Pacheco's apartment at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. During the party, Sgt Pacheco claims that a black Major and a black Sgt Major were in attendance, and I made no effort to socialize with them. [I do not recollect deliberately excluding anyone. To the contrary, I tend to be very friendly with everyone at parties regardless of their background. I have genuine social and humanitarian instincts.] In particular, Sgt Pacheco recollects that I saw a white woman holding a baby, and approached her and said, "What a cute baby --whose is it?" She said that the baby belonged to herself and a black sergeant that she had married. Sgt Pacheco feels that it was wrong of me to end my conversation without making an attempt to socialize with her husband.
(4) On the fourth occasion, I dropped off a package for Bill Henderson to look at. This was in connection with the relationship we had developed in regard to the Marine Sniper project, in which I had already created a proposed film treatment and made it available to a number of sophisticated and substantial prospective investors. According to Sgt Pacheco, Bill Henderson handed the package to him, and Sgt Pacheco saw that it had materials inside related to revisionist versions of the Holocaust, a note on propaganda sources, and Time Magazine and New York Times articles related to immigration issues along with Noontide Press materials. Sgt Pacheco feels that although he can not say that I would not be a fair officer in the exercise of my professional duties, because he has never served under me, he thinks that my views are not compatible with those of a Marine Officer based upon the materials that he has seen and the tone and pattern of my comments in private conversations.
MY COMPLAINT REGARDING EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS BY THE RECORDER TO AGGRAVATE MY CASE
I responded to Captain Primeaux's addition of these two individuals by requesting that my counsel, Captain Tucker, protest their addition and postpone my Board of Inquiry hearing date from November 27th. The addition of these two individuals forces me to broaden and deepen my defense, and prepare for virtually every topic of concern to traditional American conservatives. Regretfully, the Commanding General of the 4th Marine Division, MajGen Matthew T. Cooper, and the assistant to the current Staff Judge Advocate for the Marine Corps, Col. Lang, have rejected all attempts by Captain Tucker and myself to visit them informally to explain the situation and try to defuse the pressures leading up to the Board of Inquiry.
The process leading up to this Board of Inquiry has not been in accordance with customary Marine Corps procedures that emphasize professional counselling and the use of the chain of command. Problems typically flow "bottom up." Maj Michelle Krause should have first made an effort to get back to me to probe my position further before sounding the alarm. Next, if she still was not satisfied, she had a duty to contact my commanding officer, LtCol M. L. Ballard, who should have been given the opportunity to conduct his own fact finding and get back to Maj Krause before the matter escalated further. Instead of making an attempt to show some officer leadership and probe my beliefs further and counsel me or use the chain of command, Maj Krause essentially put a policy decision in motion for the Marine Corps by deciding, based upon the few minutes that I spoke with her and the nature of the materials that I gave her, that normal procedures could be dispensed with, that I must stand condemned, and that she could liberally use her rank and credibility as a Marine Major to begin to maneuver senior Marine Corps personnel into initiating an escalating investigation and inquiry process.
This affair was further complicated by the fact that from the time that I assumed my position as OIC of the 34th Interrogator Translator Team in Garden City, New York in December 1989 until I heard over the phone from LtCol Ballard about the alleged misconduct on 20 June 1990, I had never had a chance to meet with my commanding officer LtCol Ballard. Because of budgetary restrictions on travel, and the fact that my commanding officer is located in New Orleans and I am located in New York, we did not meet in person until after the 20 June 1990 conversation. Prior to this, I had spoken to LtCol Ballard both before and after each drill over the phone and had sent him detailed after action reports.
The "top down" evolution of this affair occurred as follows according to my present information. Maj Michelle Krause went to LtCol Fred Peck, who is the assistant to Legislative Assistant to the Commandant and Director of Public Affairs at Headquarters Marine Corps. Instead of asking her if she had ever got back to me to explore my views in greater depth, or considering that I was no longer in his chain of command, since I became OIC of the Interrogator Translator Team in Dec 1989, LtCol Peck apparently decided to side with Major Krause and escalate the matter further. At some point either he or the subsequent investigating officer contacted LtCol Frank Barrows, the OIC of MTU NY- 18 17 for over a year, the public affairs unit that I had belonged to for five years prior to my transfer in December 1989. Although I was no longer in LtCol Peck's chain of command, LtCol Barrows apparently indicated that he had heard that I had "right wing ideas" based on private conversations with certain members of the unit. LtCol Peck decided to pass the matter on to BGen Rich (now retired), the Staff Judge Advocate of the Marine Corps. BGen Rich then passed the matter on to LtCol Marlowe (soon to retire), SJA of the 4th Marine Division in New Orleans and his boss MajGen Walter E. Boomer (since then transferred to the Mideast). Maj Arthur White, OIC of the 12th Counterintelligence Team based in Washington, D.C., a reserve unit, was ordered to investigate me.
Captain Primeaux, the Board recorder, admits that Maj White's investigation leaves a lot to be desired. It contains not only major errors in fact, but also in interpretation, with hearsay built upon hearsay --rather disappointing work for an attorney. Maj White recommended an article 32 investigation (prelude to a court martial) and suggested that my promotion to Major effective in June 1990 be withheld (reversed when I was promoted in September), and recommended that I be informed that it is in the best interest of the Marine Corps that I resign my commission.
Maj White never bothered to interview me during the investigation or in anyway notify me that it was in progress. He claims in his report that my expression of my "views" in my private conversations has left everyone that I have spoken with "demoralized." I am not surprised. If I were contacted by someone like Major White and told that the Marine Corps was probing William Fox's private conversations, I too would also feel demoralized, if for no other reason than my concern for the implied threat to civil liberties. On top of this, there is a negative expectancy effect in action, in which negative attitudes are shaped by negative pressures in a fundamentally negative environment. Although Captain Primeaux recognizes the inadequacy of Maj White's investigation, he has not come forth with a recommendation that a new investigation be ordered prior to taking the more serious step of recommending that a Board of Inquiry be convened. That too is demoralizing. A lot of people actually value my ideas even though they recognize that they are not always "happy" in tone. Many of them are very puzzled about how this whole Inquiry process could come as far as it has and create such a wastage of government resources while quite possibly going far beyond the original intent of the instigators.
ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THE CASE DISMISSED
Within a week after I was informed of the charges, LtCol Ballard took a vacation with his family in Long Island, and invited me to visit him on the 27th of June. I brought with me my copies of the works of Dr. Edwin Wilson, Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Raymond Cattell, and Dr. Elmer Pendell. I also showed him a copy of "The Gene Factor" (April 13, 1987 U.S. News and World Report), "Media and Business Elites" (Oct/Nov 1981 Public Opinion), and other publications that show my academic interest in such topics as sociobiology, genetics, media, and propaganda analysis. After over two hours of conversation, LtCol Ballard said that now he had a better idea of where I was coming from, and would recommend that the Board be dropped, and that my space be kept open for me in the unit. He said that he wanted me to fight this thing, and felt that I am bright enough to talk my way out of it.
On 10 August LtCol Ballard informed me that while his superiors had decided not to hold a Board of Inquiry, that they wanted to keep me in the Individual Ready Reserve (the IRR offers no pay but does provide promotions and retirement points) and not allow me back into the "class II" or paid reserve to resume my duties as OIC of 34th 1.T.T. Then on 24 August 1990 LtCol Ballard informed me that his higher-ups had changed their minds, and we were back with the Board of Inquiry. In early September Captain Tucker was assigned as my counsel, and October 19th was set as my first board date. This was subsequently postponed to 27 November 1990. It is scheduled to take place at the Marine Corps Reserve Center at 605 Stewart Avenue in Garden City, New York, and is open to the public.
PROFESSIONAL, FAMILY, AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
If there is anyone in the Marine Corps who by virtue of their background, pattern of civilian interests and occupation, and reserve mission would have legitimate reasons in addition to the First Amendment to practice free speech and free inquiry in certain areas, it should be myself. Until I was relieved as a result of Major White's investigation as Officer in Charge of the 34th Interrogator Translator Team (I.T.T.), I truly enjoyed working with this Germanic/Slavic language unit located in Garden City, New York. This unit is focused upon Europe and the Middle East as primary areas for conducting country analyses. I elected to learn German and Norwegian and study the culture, politics, and military capabilities of Northern European countries for the purpose of participating in NATO exercises and performing liaison work. If I can be reinstated in my billet, I will head an I.T.T. unit on a NATO exercise to Norway in March 1991. [Editors Note: William Fox joined the unit at about the time the Berlin Wall was breached, but still many months before Communist East Germany was formally dissolved. Hence, German was still considered the language of a potentially hostile country. Norwegian was simply a "nice to learn" language to show respect and appreciation for the culture of Norwegian allies, and learning some Norwegian in no way implied that Norway was viewed as a hostile country].
While with MTU NY-17, a Public Affairs Unit based in New York City, I have created a Psychological Operations seminar which I later used for instruction with the I. T. T. unit. Furthermore, I am eligible to attend the Army PSYOPS courses at Ft. Bragg in my billet. In addition to the normal First Amendment rights, I can show that my interest in ideology and Nordic/Germanic culture has a tie-in with my mission. So would anything to do with Israel (eg. discussing Assault on the Liberty, They Dare to Speak Out, or By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer). As a Norwegian-American (my mother comes from Norway and my father is a mixture of German, English, Scottish, and Irish), I belong to Sons of Norway, a Norwegian-American fraternal organization, and actively participate in a number of Scandinavian and Norwegian-American organizations, to include the Norwegian-American Chamber of Commerce, as part of a healthy effort to retain my ethnic identity and experience a sense of community with other Norwegian-Americans.
Prior to taking over 34th I.T.T. in December 1989, I served for five years wvith Mobilization Training Unit New York-17, a public affairs unit that hosts an annual commander's media training symposium in which over thirty senior Marine officers come to New York City for one week in early October and hear eminent media professionals discuss editorial policy issues and also train in using "hot seat interview techniques" before video cameras. I was heavily involved in conducting both interviews and critiques my last two years with the unit, and also was tasked with digging up controversial questions for the interviews. I was also involved in inviting eminent media people to speak at the symposium. One year I invited a "60 Minutes" producer while I worked for CBS, and another year I invited LtGen Bernard Trainor, former military correspondent for the New York Times. I also wrote an article about the symposium that was accepted for publication by the Marine Corps Gazette, but remains unpublished. Since December 1989, my association with this unit has been minimal, except for the PSYOPS package that I proposed for instruction, but which was rejected.
WHY I AM FORCED TO BROADEN MY DEFENSE
My decision to approach you was triggered by two events. First, Captain Primeaux responded to Captain Tucker's letter during the week of 5 to 9 November stating that a decision had been made and that the Board of Inquiry would go ahead as scheduled on the 27th. He declared that he is convinced that "Maj Fox is guilty." Furthermore, rather than take a new look at the issue, he has simply expanded the case. My sense is that the government will address a wide smorgasbord of issues that I may have mentioned to particular people at different times, such as Asatru (Odinism), various aforementioned topics related to Israel and Zionism, the Federal Reserve System and Wall Street, Holocaust revisionism, the Eisenhower "Disarmed Enemy Forces" story, media control, sociobiology; the works of Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Raymond Cattell; various monographs and articles published by Mankind Quarterly, various theories regarding the background of the Old and New Testament, and Nordic culture. A friend of mine who is an attorney said that he thinks that the recorder may try to create the impression that any kind of involvement in these types of issues, even in private conversations, reflects "Conduct Unbecoming", therefore the more of these types of issues he can put before the Board, the more likely it is that each Board member will find something to feel offended about and the more likely it will become that the Board as a group will rule against me.
The problem with such a mentality, which I hope is not the case with either the Recorder or Board members, is that it fails to address real problems or real issues and is focused purely on personal feelings and politics. Such a purely personal and political mentality is actually parasitic, because no advanced technological society can continue to grow if too many people have it. Not many societies have proven themselves capable of increasing productivity at a faster rate than consumption. It requires high levels of rationality and disciplined behavior to support high levels of technology and sustained economic growth. Furthermore, in the long run we always pay a price for our delusions that is greater than anything that we gain from them, both in terms of real costs and opportunity costs, and we simply can not develop more accurate views of life without the right of free speech, especially in last resort situations such as private conversations.
We already see some distressing economic indicators relative to other countries such as Germany and Japan. According to the article "Why Japan Loves Robots and We Don't" (Forbes, 16 April 1990) Japan already installs more robots every year than our entire installed base that exists to date. I view this as an important indicator of not only serious problems with our computer integrated manufacturing base, but the declining health of our industry and economy at large (I have already mentioned the Scott and Cherington Harvard Business School report that takes a broader look and perceives the same problem). At some point America may never be able to catch up, especially when advanced weapons move to a stage in which only totally robotized manufacturing facilities can efficiently assemble them. At that point, America may become subjected to extremely powerful external forces that may cause it to cease to exist as a country. But then, given the way the she-wolf appears to be out to eat her own young in my particular case, should we be surprised that this pattern of behavior, repeated throughout this country, could be a key factor in America's possible demise?
In our age of rapid technological change, the nation that can no longer permit rational inquiry and the free flow of information is a doomed nation. Organizations that stifle creative and rational input are also doomed in: the long run. I am disappointed by the lack of rational feedback from certain sources in this case, and am further disappointed with the extent to which this irrationality has worked to waste time and talents that could be better directed elsewhere. I feel a patriotic duty to do everything that I can to work within the system to make a positive contribution, and can certainly point to the developmental analysis that I created for potential construction of a new Headquarters building at Henderson Hall as an example of a contribution that flourished in an environment unmolested by negative politics. I know that LtCol Ballard has a lot of projects in which I can continue to make a contribution.
The second "trigger" event was my conversation last week with a fellow Marine reserve officer who is by education an attorney. After discussing my case in detail, he told me that based upon his oath as a military officer to uphold the Constitution, he found my case to be "very frightening." To him it could almost appear that certain officers who have accused me are looking to impress their command as to their alertness and sensitivity to racial issues but have nevertheless lost sight of the First Amendment, the scientific and scholarly traditions of Western Civilization, and the simple requirement to use judicious procedures at the lowest level possible. He felt that given the momentum that has been generated, the most realistic and reasonable way to contain it and uphold justice would involve immediately seeking the counsel of a civilian lawyer, particularly one within a civil liberties organization. At some point it may even become necessary to approach Congressmen and the media, although this course of action carries the risk of creating a number of counterproductive complications.
KEY WITNESSES IN MY DEFENSE
Fortunately my Commanding Officer, LtCol M. L. Ballard, and the Inspector-Instructor who provides administrative support for my unit, LtCol James Wire, have told Captain Tucker that they will testify in my behalf. So will the Commanding Officer, Col Louis E. Cherico, and the Executive Officer, LtCol Baily H. McBee, for the April exercise in Coronado. Key members of my unit, the 34th I.T.T., will testify that they have never seen my private views result in acts of discrimination while on the job. I can also produce at least one fellow Marine Officer who can claim that he has worked with me for over five years in a public affairs capacity and has never heard me discuss any controversial political matters with him. This might negate any claims that I am systematically "proselytizing", but then again, what a sad commentary it is on the state of our country when my "virtue" in the eyes of a Board of Inquiry may be measured in terms of how many substantial issues have NOT been communicated to fellow officers, even in a public affairs unit whose primary mission involves tackling important media issues during an annual commander's media training symposium held in New York City.
THE ENORMITY OF MY CASE IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
In contrast to my case, many people in this country have enjoyed awesome freedoms of speech. The Supreme Court has declared that it is "OK" to publicly burn the American flag as a "statement." The minority artist Andres Serrano, who dipped a crucifix of Christ in his own urine, photographed it, and dubbed it "Piss Christ", was not only funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, but has been hailed by certain civil libertarians for his "expression." The article "The New Face of Black Power" (Village Voice, Oct 9, 1990) discusses how Coltrane Chimurenga, leader of the Black Men's Movement, was absolved of all charges by a jury despite police evidence that included wiretapped conversations and handwritten notes found in raids on a network of activist safehouses. Police found in Chimurenga's possession pistols, Uzis, ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, a number of false driver's licenses and fake Social Security cards. He was accused of planning at least four armed robberies and two jailbreaks. Chimurenga publicly wears a Maoist cap and espouses revolutionary Maoist ideology. The jury felt that since Chimurenga had never actually implemented the alleged plans, he was protected under the First Amendment. I can only ask, if Chimurenga can enjoy such broad First Amendment protection for his publicly espoused revolutionary ideology and covert revolutionary cell organization, why can I not enjoy First Amendment protection for my private philosophical explorations, especially since America grants the right to Marine reserve officers such as myself to run for public office? As a case in point, Captain Chris Burnham, formerly with my former New York Public Affairs MTU and now a member of the Stamford, Connecticut unit of Major John Davies, publicly espoused conservative Republican views in his successful campaign for a seat in the Connecticut legislature.
Although it is true that military people enjoy fewer rights than civilians, I must emphasize that my "controversial comments" have not only been made in private conversations, but also have involved matters of a generalized historical, cultural, philosophical, or religious nature and have not directly criticized current U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or Marine Corps policy or contemporary politicians or military leaders. (Let us keep in mind, however, that technically I also have a right to be critical in these areas as well). In other words, I am being prosecuted for the closest thing to pure "thought crime" that one could imagine.
The irony of this whole procedure is that it is actually forcing me to work full time at thinking about and discussing philosophical matters as part of developing my defense. If I were simply left alone so that I could focus upon making a living or focus on specific Marine Corps projects, I simply would be too busy to spend much time discussing controversial matters with other people, even in private conversations.
Is it just for the Marine Corps to injure my standing as a result of this case? I have never in my whole life done anything to bring discredit to the Marine Corps, and have instead worked hard as a very loyal and conscientious American. My efforts to share information have been altruistic, supportive, and discreet in nature. It is truly incredible that certain fellow Marine officers appear to be so prone to initiate hostile action against this kind of behavior. Is this the kind of "Band of Brothers" behavior that the Marine Corps has promoted in the past?
If Captain Primeaux, the Board Recorder, were to accomplished his objectives, he would create a terrible precedent for members of other minority groups who serve as either Regulars or Reserves in addition to Norwegian-Americans. Since Norwegian-Americans number only about four million in America, approximately the same as the population of Norwegians in Norway, I view myself as a member of a minority group. I am also a member of an indigenous people, to the extent that the Nordic peoples are indigenous to northern Europe and northern Eurasia. (This has been verified by numerous anthropological sources as well as indicated by such traditional sources as the Ynglinga Saga of the Heimskringla. In The Prehistory of Denmark (1982), the author, Jorgen Jensen, Keeper of the Department of Prehistory at the National Museum in Copenhagen, claims that the presence of man in Denmark can be traced more than 200,000 years back in time).
A "success" on the part of Captain Primeaux could severely damage the rights of other minority groups and indigenous peoples in America. As examples, if under the circumstances of private conversations, an African-American were to discuss or pass on something written by the Reverend Louis Farrakhan or Elijah Muhammad or the late Malcolm X or Marcus Garvey, or an American Indian were to discuss or pass on a copy of the Akwesasne Notes and were to show sympathy for recent Mohawk activism, or a Jewish-American were to discuss or pass on something written by historical Zionist leaders such as Theodore Herzl or even the late Rabbi Meir Kahane or were to show profound sympathy for the suffering of his people and reveal a strong identification with his ancestry, or an Arab-American were to discuss or pass on a copy of the Al-Fajr Jerusalem Palestinian Weekly or the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs or any other publications that seem just a little bit too preoccupied with Arab interests and Arab suffering during the Intifada or critical of Israel, or an Irish-American were to reveal that he has become fascinated by ancient Celtic folkways and the nativistic studies of certain founders of the Irish Republican Army and the Irish Free State, or an Italian-American were to reveal that he is "hot" on Garibaldi and other Italian nationalist or Roman Republican heroes, or a Mexican-American were to discuss or pass on some "La Raza" material --all of these cases would logically be vulnerable to exactly the same type of treatment that I have received. Commanders who become aware of people offering "unusual ideas" that could lend themselves to possible racial exclusivity based upon ethnic or ancestral identification would feel compelled to probe the personal contacts and private conversations of these people going back many years in the same manner that I have been probed.
It would appear that the military could begin to arbitrarily incriminate individuals simply by producing witnesses who attest to patterns of allegedly distasteful remarks. This could include vague statements about a lack of perceived "friendliness" to the right people at social functions, such as what Sgt Pacheco claims to have observed on my part at his party. Enlisted personnel would be encouraged to continue keeping a sharp eye on the off-duty as well as on-duty behavior of officers, especially in regard to comments that may "indicate" or "show a pattern" of ideological deviationalism that may suggest "wrong tendencies."
Books and literature found in the private possession of servicemen would also be admissible to build cases against the suspected deviationalism. The Commandant of the Marine Corps created a "professional reading list" to encourage Marines to read more widely, however, as a result of this case, Marines may come to feel that any books that are not on the reading list are potentially "suspect." The mere fact that a book is offered for sale in Marine Corps Association bookstores may not be a defense, to the extent that I bought a paperback copy of Assault on the Libert.v; The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship at the MCA bookstore in the Henderson Hall Exchange adjacent to Headquarters Marine Corps, yet obviously my knowledge of this book has helped to induce Capt Gorman to label me an "anti-Semite." Similar charges could be brought against an Arab-American in uniform who seems to be just a little bit too preoccupied with the intifada and little bit too aware of problems experienced by Arabs on the West Bank. The Marine Corps might be able to use as its "smoking gun" the fact that in his private conversations he disclosed that he purchased a copy of Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship in a Marine Corps Association bookstore like myself.
Finally, all Fundamentalist Christian and Orthodox Jewish military personnel would have to answer for adhering to Old Testament writings "that lean towards "purity of race", such as Deuteronomy 7:3 which states "You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons", or the commandment in Joshua to slay all Canaanites without mercy and take their land of milk and honey, and the action of Ezra to end all marriages of Jews with Gentiles and eject all foreign wives and their children from the community. Since Islamic peoples have experienced continuing conflict with Israel since the inception of the Jewish state, and since any possible indication of "anti-Semitism" is clearly a big concern for the military (my Board of Inquiry is clear evidence of this), from now on all Black Muslims and any Arab Americans who follow the Koran may need to start explaining to senior military officials on a continuing basis how their interpretation of their religious literature allows them to maintain sufficiently favorable attitudes towards Israel and the American Jewish community that they will never ever run the risk of being labelled "anti-Semitic."
I must emphasize that having grown up and lived so much of my life in an academic setting, I have always been taught that the way to combat "distasteful" ideas is with opposing arguments, especially in a free society that cherishes the free market place ideas. If a person does not have the time to debate or educate someone, they can exercise their right of privacy by simply ignoring that person. The use of disciplinary action or oppression in the face of an intellectual argument is rather ominous. The inability or unwillingness of people to offer counter arguments is typically an indication of moral corruption and intellectual bankruptcy. Oddly enough, during the development of this affair, none of my adversaries have been willing to get back to me or meet me on intellectual ground. None of the government witnesses have ever provided a counterargument. Nor did they ever alert me to the fact that they thought something was seriously wrong until charges were brought up against me. What could possibly be so "rotten in Denmark" on their part that could provoke this kind of. unchivalrous, anti-collegial, anti-rational, anti-academic, and anti-First Amendment reaction?
DAMAGES THAT I HAVE SUFFERED
I have been forced to lay aside my real estate brokerage practice ever since this past summer to devote myself full time towards preparing for the Board of Inquiry, which has already been postponed from October 19th to November 27th. There is a chance that I can get it postponed again, since I believe that I may need more time to prepare my case and develop support. During the time that I have been forced to begin preparing my case since last June, I have not only suffered anguish from the damage to my reputation, but have also suffered financial damage through foregone income, especially because softness in the real estate market undermined a pipeline of important real estate deals that I had created. The full time demands and costs of preparing my defense are driving me into debt and poverty, and I am coming close to being forced to welcome outside donations.
THE NATURE OF MY ADVERSARIES
It would appear that a combination of ignorance, careerism, and "outside pressures" have made certain Marine officers feel that it is noble and virtuous to conduct ill-founded witch hunts. Some forget that there are countervailing First Amendment rights, to include freedom of ethnic association and freedom of religion, that must be enforced in order for our country to prosper. I am perfectly happy to live and let live. All that I ask is that they desist in their efforts to invade my private conversations and personal thought space. I also request that they desist in their additional efforts to damage my reputation, my reserve career, and my civilian livelihood.
MY REQUIREMENT FOR SUPPORT
I clearly need advice from very experienced and sophisticated people. I know very little about such entities as the American Civil Liberties Union or the voting records and dispositions of various Congressmen. Obviously the American Civil Liberties Union has many types of people, just like the Marine Corps. Would I be wise to go to the ACLU at this point? If so, who within the ACLU would be my best point of contact? What Congressmen would tend to be most sympathetic to my case? What could a Congressman do for me? If, during the hearing, the government makes a special point of probing various "right wing issues", should I consider calling in expert witnesses for each topic area?
Although my case involves numerous policy issues that may be of concern to senior policy makers, it is most appropriate for me as a military reserve officer to focus purely upon the most personally relevant objective of doing everything that I can to have this case dismissed so that I can be reinstated in my unit arid prevent unjust accusations from marring my record.
As a Marine reserve officer, a prime objective has always been to promote organizational efficiency and preserve espirit de corps. In support of this objective, I wish to accomplish my reinstatement with a minimal administrative burden to the Marine Corps. Towards this end, I wish to refrain from publicizing this case until such an option is forced upon me. My appeal at that point is to civilian counsel, which could be followed by an appeal to civil liberties organizations and if necessary to Congressmen and the media.
The way in which Maj Krause and other individuals escalated this matter may not have been nice for me, but it still does not necessarily indicate anything beyond individual shortcomings or biases. The fact that Major White was not particularly factual, thorough, or sophisticated in his investigation could be dismissed by some people as an individual failing and my tough luck. No "witnesses" have committed themselves in writing yet, although my defense counsel has taken extensive notes. To really produce a smoking gun and bloody shirt, the Marine Corps may have to go ahead and have the Board rule unfavorably on my First Amendment rights while showing arrogant and unreasonable behavior before the evidence presented and parties in support of myself.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION POTENTIALLY USEFUL FOR MY DEFENSE
I have created several papers that help to provide deeper background on both a legal and philosophical level regarding my defense.
I am currently updating a very detailed description of every incident involved in this case. I will be happy to describe these works over the phone and provide them upon request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Please feel free to give me a phone call at my work/home number (718) 729-1484 any time of day, from early in the morning until midnight, seven days a week, to discuss this matter further. In this case, because of the current November 27 date for the Board of Inquiry, I would like to speak with you as soon as possible.
I look forward to your response.
* These addresses and phone numbers are no longer valid.