Amateur Espionage Spy Skills for

Everyday Life P.J. Agness

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/amateur-espionage-spy-skills-for-everyday-life-p-j-agn
ess/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Using Mindfulness Skills in Everyday Life A practical

guide 1st Edition Christine Dunkley

https://ebookmeta.com/product/using-mindfulness-skills-in-
everyday-life-a-practical-guide-1st-edition-christine-dunkley/

Loose Leaf Version for Psychology in Everyday Life 5e

Launchpad for Psychology in Everyday Lifss 5th Edition
David G. Myers

https://ebookmeta.com/product/loose-leaf-version-for-psychology-
in-everyday-life-5e-launchpad-for-psychology-in-everyday-
lifss-5th-edition-david-g-myers/

Soft Skills 3rd Edition Personality Development for

Life Success Prashant Sharma

https://ebookmeta.com/product/soft-skills-3rd-edition-
personality-development-for-life-success-prashant-sharma/

Korean Made Easy for Everyday Life 2nd Edition English

ver Oh Seung-Eun

https://ebookmeta.com/product/korean-made-easy-for-everyday-
life-2nd-edition-english-ver-oh-seung-eun/
American Spy Wry Reflections on My Life in the CIA H K
Roy

https://ebookmeta.com/product/american-spy-wry-reflections-on-my-
life-in-the-cia-h-k-roy/

Media and Everyday Life: 2nd Edition Tim Markham

https://ebookmeta.com/product/media-and-everyday-life-2nd-
edition-tim-markham/

Digital Performance in Everyday Life 1st Edition Gratch

https://ebookmeta.com/product/digital-performance-in-everyday-
life-1st-edition-gratch/

Psychology in Everyday Life 5th Edition David G. Myers

https://ebookmeta.com/product/psychology-in-everyday-life-5th-
edition-david-g-myers/

Beginning Bazel: Building and Testing for Java, Go, and

More 1st Edition P.J. Mcnerney

https://ebookmeta.com/product/beginning-bazel-building-and-
testing-for-java-go-and-more-1st-edition-p-j-mcnerney/
 Amateur Espionage

Introduction

Espionage is often a vocation, a professional career path populated by intelligence officers who
quietly serve their countries from the shadows. Many of these clandestine professionals continue
their careers in the lucrative industry of corporate espionage, which is almost always far more
profitable than being on a government salary.

Within the ranks of these professional intelligence officers is a smaller group of professionals
specializing in human intelligence operations. These HUMINT officers recruit individuals to
become their informants, to conduct espionage on the officer’s behalf.
Although Hollywood movies confuse the two, an official employee of an intelligence agency is
an officer. The informant recruited by an officer is an agent or a spy. These agents are typically
ordinary people that may have access to information which the officer’s agency would be
interested in. They are amateurs that must be trained in the art of intelligence tradecraft.
The world has frequently been shaped by such amateur espionage. Political activists, criminals,
insurgents, terrorists, and indigenous tribes have all engaged in amateur espionage that has
shaped the course of history.
Open-source intelligence practitioners are frequently now gathering intelligence at a rate that is
outpacing government intelligence services. Social media meme creators are frequently far more
effective at psychological operations than military intelligence agencies have been. Citizen
activists routinely engage in propaganda far more effectively than espionage professionals do.
In many cases espionage professionals have taught their dark arts to amateurs, who have then
used these skills in both noble and devious ways. Never before in history has this knowledge
been more available. This book is about that knowledge.
This book was written by an amateur. An amateur who has engaged in espionage to achieve
political, personal, and professional goals. This book is written to amateurs who would like to
use espionage to achieve their own goals and improve their own lives. It’s a manual for those of
us who aren’t super spies, but everyday people. Conventional soldiers, special forces operators,
and intelligence operatives all have their own manuals. This book is written as a manual for you,
the glorious amateur. Like many manuals, it is not written in chapters, but in sections. It is
divided up into twenty-one such sections. Each section will be self-contained and do not
necessarily follow in any particular order. You may find a section more interesting or relevant
for you than another section. That is okay. Take what is useful for you from this manual. This
manual is a companion piece to Street Level Spycraft. They are both meant as manuals to
understand, learn, and apply espionage tradecraft in everyday life. They do not need to be read in
any particular order, and it is not necessary to read both, although it may be helpful to furthering
your education in amateur espionage.

The Dedication:
I would like to dedicate this book to the “glorious amateurs” of the Office of Strategic Services.
Infuriated that civilians were put in charge of espionage during the Second World War, both J.
Edgar Hoover and established military intelligence services attempted to insult the OSS as
 “undisciplined amateurs”. OSS founder “Wild” Bill Donovan embraced the insult and lead his
“glorious amateurs” in espionage operations all across Europe and Asia. The OSS would turn the
tide of war with their propaganda and sabotage missions that set the stage for the invasion of
Normandy. Considered the forerunners of the Central Intelligence Agency, the OSS is just
another example of how amateurs can change history.

As a proud member of the OSS Society, the OSS is a gigantic inspiration to me personally and
their influence will be continually evidence throughout this book.

Section 1: The Assessment

If you’ve been exposed to any intelligence, military, law enforcement, or self-defense training
then you’ve probably learned some sort of acronym designed to streamline the learning process.

The OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop is a concept designed by an Air Force Colonel
for United States Air Force pilots to quickly make decisions and the concept has influenced
many other military personnel since its inception. In the parts of the United States Intelligence
Community the ARC process (Analysis Research Cycle) is taught to aid in decision-making.
There are several Active Shooter preparedness training programs. The one I prefer uses the
acronym ALIVE (Assess, Leave, Impede, Violence, Expose).

These acronyms might be extremely difficult to remember. Hopefully, the concepts that these
acronyms teach are much easier to retain.

However, these concepts all have one thing in common: assessment is an indispensable part of
the decision-making process.

No military anywhere in the world would charge into combat without proper assessment. It
would be suicide. Civilians who are not trained to assess the surrounding situation often run
straight into danger. Unfortunately, many have run straight towards an active shooter or an
explosion in an emergency situation. Especially in an enclosed structure like a school, mall, or
workplace it can be nearly impossible to tell where the source of an explosion or gunfire is
originating from. Echoes and reverberation of sounds may confuse your sense of hearing and
your ears may deceive you. Fortunately, you have other senses to help you decipher the source of
danger, but this requires a bit of assessment. In this instance, acting too quickly may get you
killed. This is a pattern we see in many emergency situations. Crowds trample individuals when
trying to escape to safety. Panic before a natural disaster leads to shortages at grocery stores and
gas stations. Situations like these are due to lack of proper assessment, which leads to improper
action.

Assessment is not only important in an emergency situation, but also in avoiding them. Every
school shooter has had warning signs and red flags. They author manifestos that are almost
identical. If asked, other students at the school can correctly identify kids that are at risk of being
a school shooter. In many cases, federal law enforcement has investigated these individuals and
failed to follow up on them. In these cases, lack of proper threat assessment has exposed many
young people to danger and resulted in loss of life.
Proper assessment is critical, but is also insufficient if not followed by proper action. Assessment
 is a process that should be done both repeatedly and quickly. It can be done in seconds.
However, taking too much time to think or “paralysis by analysis” must be avoided. Many
tragedies have resulted from individuals overanalyzing their situations and failing to decisively
act. This results in a phenomenon similar to a deer getting caught in the headlights of an
oncoming truck.
It is understandable that paralysis does happen. It can be difficult to prioritize in the middle of
chaos. The most expedient way to streamline the decision-making process is to ask “What can
kill me the quickest?”.

You’re asleep in bed one night during the middle of Winter. You wake up, and your house is full
of smoke. There is a fire outside your bedroom. You can escape through your window, but you
will face temperatures so low that frostbite quickly becomes a painful concern. Nonetheless, the
more immediate threat is the smoke and fire. You will have to worry about the frigid
environment outside after you escape the burning house. You break the window and crawl
outside in your flannel pajamas. You thankfully find a neighbor to allow you to shelter in their
house for a while. The smoke inhalation would have killed you long before you would have
frozen to death.

There is no complex acronym here, but just like the OODA loop or the Analysis Research Cycle,
the process of analysis and action needs to be repeated over and over as new situations and
information present themselves. Imagine a spy thriller where the protagonist never reassesses the
situation. Imagine a superhero movie in which the hero never readjusts to a new challenge. These
protagonists would, of course, fail. In fact, many of these movies are predicated on the notion of
a character having to adapt to new challenges to succeed. Reassessment is crucial to the plot. It’s
crucial in real life as well.

Assess and act, assess again and act. There’s nothing complicated about it. Don’t act without
assessment. Don’t assess and fail to act.

Section 2: The Rogue

Most people go through life merely reacting to the world around them. They go on dates with the
hope of being liked by the other person, trying to speak and act in a manner that might win them
approval.

The ordinary person goes to a job interview hoping to impress the interviewer. They exaggerate
their qualifications and give inauthentic answers that might make them look good.
The majority of people are influenced in their opinions and values by what they read on social
media and hear on television. They consistently warp themselves to conform to popular culture.

Now contrast that with your favorite fictional super spy. Most fictional spies have certain
character traits in common. They are usually suave, witty, resourceful, confident, and full of
guile. The word “roguish” describes most of these characters nicely. James Bond, of course, is
the quintessential roguish spy.

For this reason, we’ll use Mr. Bond as our example.

 It would be hard to imagine James Bond in a job interview, nervously trying to impress the
interviewers. Picturing 007 on a date awkwardly trying too hard to say the right things is equally
difficult. Nor would James Bond be following the latest trends in a desperate attempt to win
approval from modern society.
No. James Bond has his own sense of style. He is self-assured, not looking for anyone’s
approval, living life on his own terms.
Most people are not in control of their lives. They are passive, reactivate, victims of
circumstance. Life isn’t something they live, but rather something that happens to them.
James Bond doesn’t isn’t passive in the way he lives his life. Of course, it’s easier for him After
all, James Bond is a fictional character. Nevertheless, James Bond creator Ian Fleming drew
inspiration from many men he knew from his days as a military intelligence officer. These were
roguish men, men who lent some aspect of themselves to Fleming’s character.
These men were not fictional, although many of their exploits have become the stuff of legend.
These men all shared some common traits. They were men of action, they squeezed life for all it
was worth, supremely confident, and they all had that roguish quality that makes men want to be
more like James Bond.
You can be like these men. You don’t have to be a passenger on your ride through life. All you
need to do is slightly shift your thinking from a passive mindset to a roguish one.

Instead of going into a job interview trying to convince the interviewers that they want to hire
you, put yourself in the position of control. Walk in assured of your own value. You are actually
interviewing the company, not the other way around. Don’t worry about if they like you or not.
Do you like them?

Likewise, when on a date you should not concern yourself with acting in a way that you think
your date will like. Be authentically who you are, assured of your own value. You need to ask
yourself if you like your date. Do you want to see this person again?

In both of these situations, you are sure that you are highly worth hiring or dating. If the person
on the other end of the table doesn’t see that, it isn’t your loss, but theirs. If they don’t recognize
your desirability, it probably wasn’t a good fit for you anyway. They’re doing you a favor.

The rogue mindset is unshakable, confident, and nonreactive. The rogue focuses on their own
values, morals, and goals, and it’s swayed by the outside world. It’s a mindset that isn’t nervous
or worried about the opinions of others.

Next time you go into an interview, a date, or meeting new people you can lean back, assume a
more relaxed posture, and behave like you’ve already won approval. Don’t focus on winning
anyone’s approval. Instead, they need to win your approval. From now on, you’re in charge.
You’re the roguish hero of this story.

Section 3: The Camouflage

Nothing looks more suspicious than someone trying to be sneaky. It would serve you better to
play dumb instead of sneaky.
 Stupidity is like camouflage in an urban environment. The world is full of stupid and
incompetent people. We are all accustomed to them. Most people work right alongside many of
them. No one gives them much thought. We may be slightly annoyed with them, but we don’t
think enough of them to really merit any hatred. Especially if they’re nice.

In fact, I sometimes enjoy the goofy and harmlessly stupid people I know, as long as they are
friendly, and I don’t have to put up with them for any length of time. This is exactly the feeling
you want to illicit if you need to be “sneaky”. You want people to wish you’d go away.

Modern camouflage isn’t just a way of dress for the urban environment. It is also the way that
you behave and carry yourself. Do you want to infiltrate an office? A delivery uniform and a box
will certainly do the trick. Business casual attire and a clipboard will not only get you into almost
anywhere, but will give off the impression that you are someone to be ignored. All of this will be
amplified by being both polite and incompetent.

I’m not supposed to be here? Oh my gosh! The address I have says I’m actually supposed to be
across the street. I feel really dumb. I’m sorry. Can you help me?

It’s best to overdo it when being apologetic. It’s awkward and embarrassing when someone falls
all over themselves to apologize or continues to be apologetic after the initial apology is
accepted.

It might be counterintuitive to intentionally behave in a way repellent to others, but in some

cases that is exactly what you want. People are far less likely to examine your motives when they
want to get rid of you. However, it’s important that you seek to merely cause annoyance rather
than actual anger. When people are angry, they are less likely to accept any apologies. They are
likely to seek to punish you, detain you, or scrutinize you. Your goal isn’t to illicit hatred. Your
goal is to be ignored.

Be a loveable idiot. A lovable idiot can get away with a lot. Act like you need to be helped and
pitied. People will go out of their way to help you. Don’t sneak around like a criminal. You’ll
only be perceived as a criminal. Instead, be a lovable idiot. You will be able to talk your way out
of being in places that you are not supposed to be. You’ll be able to gain information that you
should not have access to. Furthermore, you will be able to gain assistance that you otherwise
would not have. Know when to be an idiot.

Section 4: The Combat

I’ve been involved in the martial arts world for my entire adult life. I have never been interested
in the winning of trophies, earning belts, competing in a sport, or learning arcane weapons. I’ve
always focused on things that would allow me to defend myself and those around me. This
obsession with self-defense has led me on a search to find only the most effective and efficient
techniques. I’ve studied MMA, traditional martial arts, and military hand-to-hand combat
techniques. Some of these systems of combat don’t work well as self-defense. Before I knew any
better, I thought that military martial arts would likely be the most brutally efficient systems to
end an attack. I was incorrect in that assumption.
 These military martial arts are actually often unfit for civilian self-defense for a number of
reasons. They are usually very specific to the equipment carried by the military units that they
were developed for. Helmets, body armor, fighting knives, bayonets, and entrenching tools have
all been used in various systems of hand-to-hand combat.

These systems typically have a particular mission in mind. Some are meant specifically to kill,
while others are meant to detain enemy combatants. Most don’t translate well to the civilian
world.

Many military hand-to-hand combat systems are not in use anymore. Hand-to-hand fighting
doesn’t have much value to a modern military. Warfare has become far less personal than it was
for most of human history. In fact, most conventional soldiers will never get anywhere near an
enemy combatant. Hand-to-hand combat is as relevant to most modern battlefields as the electric
telegraph is to modern communication.

However, there have been some excellent military martial arts developed during times when
hand-to-hand combat was more common. These techniques were especially relevant to special
operations forces, unconventional units, and espionage operatives.

Especially effective were the techniques that were taught jointly to the operatives of the
American Office of Strategic Services and the British Special Operations Executive during the
Second World War.

These operatives were expected to parachute behind enemy lines to carry out intelligence and
sabotage missions. They would be expected to work in hostile territory with little or no support.
These operatives were far more likely than most conventional soldiers to engage in unarmed
combat.

The OSS and SOE recruits were subjected to a demanding training regimen at Canada’s Secret
Training School 103, or Camp X. Multiple skills were taught and needed to be learned in a very
short time, so the hand-to-hand combat training had to be efficient and effective. This was
accomplished by focusing on simple techniques that were meant to defeat an enemy quickly. The
techniques focused on the most vulnerable targets of the human body.

Not only were these vulnerable points taught, but the most effective ways to attack them were
also utilized.

Vulnerable tools like punches were never used. Obviously a recruit breaking the small bones in
his fist by throwing a punch would be an unwise strategy. Instead, more durable strikes were
taught, such as the hammer fist (striking with the underside of the fist) and knife hand strike
(often called a karate chop in movies and television), which both rely on striking with the more
durable part of the hand that lies between the little finger and the wrist. Palm strikes, elbows, and
knees also were utilized. A headbutt was only used when the large bone of the forehead was
driven into a soft target, like the bridge of the nose.

Penetration was also taught, which means that every strike was meant to go through the target.
This is the same concept as a golfer following through on a swing or a baseball player following
through when batting.

The following training excerpt focuses on those techniques. They are meant to target these
vulnerable areas.

They are referred to here as “pressure points”. This material defines pressure points differently
than many traditional martial arts do:

Pressure points are areas of the human body that are vulnerable to damage when attacked with
the appropriate weapon.

The effects of strikes to pressure points will also depend upon a combination of the following
five factors:
The weight behind the delivery.
The speed of the delivery.
The accuracy of the strike.
The opponent’s physical and mental state.
Operational dress and equipment will directly influence technique as well as the effect of any
strikes.

Specific pressure points are difficult to reach, especially when the opponent is moving and
attacking you at the same time. The exact pressure points can only be attacked when the
opponent’s defense has been broken down with strong attacks to general areas. Real combat will
never be a display of perfect form. It will always be a display of quick opportunities. There will
always be a high rate of low power strikes, forced throws and imperfect techniques. Because of
this factor, consider the principle of overkill by using combinations in your attack.

The temples lie between the tops of the ears and the eyes. Attack the temples with:
Palm strike
Headbutt
Knife hand strike (Karate chop)
Elbow strike
Attack the area between the eyes with:
Knife hand
Palm strike
Hammer fist

Attack the ears by grabbing or clapping:

Grab and rip up or down
Attack the ears with:
 Strike with knife hand or hammer fist
Clap with cupped hands to damage the ear drums
The eyes can be attacked with any weapon. Minimum force is required to create maximum
damage. The only danger to the attacker is the rigid bone that surrounds the eye socket. Remove
the eye by pushing the fingers or thumb in at the top middle of the socket.
The jaw line can be attacked with:
Palm strikes thrust upwards
Knife hand or hammer fist
Elbow

The throat area targets cover the wind pipe, Adam’s apple and the hollow of the throat:
Fingers and thumbs can be pushed into them
A palm strike can be thrust inwards at the Adam’s apple
Elbow strikes can be used against the side of the throat
Knife hand strikes can be used against the sides or straight against the throat

The solar plexus area is usually well protected. Any attacks to this area are typically part of a
combination that opens up the opponent’s defenses. Attack this area with:
A roundhouse knee
A knee strike
A hammer first

The spleen can be attacked with:

A palm strike
A kick
An elbow
A knee strike
The bladder and groin area can be attacked with:
Kicks and knees

The genital area is often well protected. Direct attacks to this area can be used to draw the
opponent’s defense down and leave other targets exposed. Attack this area with:
Knees
Kicks
Grab and twist

The upper lip area and below the nose can be attacked with a knife hand

Between the neck and shoulder can be attacked with a knife hand or hammer fist
 The ribs can be attacked with knees, hammer fists, round kicks, and knife hand strikes

The shin can be attacked with:

The inside of the foot
The side of the boot can be scraped down the length of the shin

The ears can be attacked from behind with hammer fists and clapping blows

The muscles at the side of the spine at the base of the skull can be attacked with the knife hand

The base of the skull can be attacked with:

Hammer fists
Knife hand
Elbow strike

The spine at the base of the neck can be attacked with:

Knife hand
Elbow
Hammer fist

These strikes are devastating and meant only to preserve life by disabling an attacker.

Section 5: The Feelings

Everyone you meet is a complex person with thoughts, desires, regrets, fears, wants, and needs.
I’m sure you knew that already, but knowing it and applying it are two different things. Very
rarely does anyone think of anyone other than themselves in those terms. We may feel bad for
people or dislike seeing them in pain. We have an easy time sympathizing. Sympathy is easy.
However, we tend to have a very hard time empathizing with other people. We may use the word
“empathy” but we rarely move past sympathizing.

Empathy is far from just an emotional response to the state of others, but really putting yourself
in their shoes, really understanding them. This is difficulty to do and very few people are actually
capable of it. Even fewer people actually master it. It is a skill, just like any other. It takes
practice and there are many skill levels that an individual can possess. Make no mistake, it is a
skill set and a weapon. Just as a rifle is a weapon. A rifle can be used to kill or be used to defend.
It can be used to feed your family or used for recreation. It can be dangerous if used as a
dangerous weapon, but it is not intrinsically dangerous.

Likewise, it can be used irresponsibly or can be wielded skillfully. Just as marksmanship can be
practiced and honed, empathy can as well. It can be weaponized by a skillful practitioner until it
resembles mind reading.

Once you can “read minds”, it’s not hard to influence them. HUMINT, or intelligence gathering
from human sources is the main objective of an intelligence officer. This an extremely important
point, which is why this chapter will be the most extensive.

Intelligence officers are not “spies” or “secret agents”. Instead, an intelligence officer recruits an
agent (most often a foreign citizen) to spy on their own government or organization, becoming
an agent of the intelligence officer. The agent is someone who has been identified as an
individual with access to information that the intelligence officer needs.

The intelligence officer needs to then influence that individual to become a spy. This is rarely
done with any weapon other than empathy. The officer needs to understand what might motivate
an agent to become a spy, to commit espionage, to steal secrets.

Make no mistake about it, the officer is asking the potential agent to commit treason. This is both
dangerous for the officer to ask and for the agent to agree to. It requires the officer to deeply
understand the agent, figure out what the agent might want or need, and propose this
arrangement in a way that seems enticing to the prospective agent. The level of empathy for the
agent must be high. Former intelligence officers often state that they never ask an agent prospect
to become a spy without first being sure of how they will answer.

Obviously, as an amateur you may not be recruiting an agent to betray their country, but you
may want to recruit an agent to help you in any number of situations, so can apply the same
formula.

Intelligence officers are taught the acronym MICE to assess the factors that might motivate an
agent. This acronym stands for
Money
Ideology
Coercion
Ego
I have written about MICE in the predecessor to this book, Street Level Spycraft, but I would
like to break this acronym down further and would like to introduce a second acronym, which I
have created to further explore these motivating factors.

M stands for money

This should not be strictly interpreted as only cash. It can be more rightfully interpreted as
currency. Currency can be understood as anything that can be used to buy intelligence from an
agent. The most sought after currency outside the developed world is education. Sundry Middle
Eastern spies have agreed to gather intelligence based on an agreement that their children will be
given a quality Western education. Other agents have committed espionage for female handlers
based on a sexual relationship. Sex has been the currency in these instances. In other instances
the currency exchanged has been citizenship, security, or food and shelter. M stands for money,
but in a loose sense of the term. Anything that an officer can use to purchase intelligence is
money.
 I stands for ideology.
This is considered the strongest of the motivators and the most concrete. Religious or political
ideology can cause someone to be a zealous and unshakable agent. People can be more devoted
to their ideology than preserving their own survival.

C stands for coercion.

Coercion is defined as “The practice of persuading someone by using force or threats”. Using
this form of motivation is both unstable and dangerous. An agent under coercion may decide that
they no longer care about the threat or that the force used won’t contain them any longer. Now
the agent is angry and motivated against their handler. Plainly, don’t use coercion.

E stands for ego.

Ego is not just a person’s sense of self-esteem or sense of self-importance, but their entire sense
of how they see themselves. Everyone has an ego. Everyone wants that ego stroked. A person
who sees themselves as brave or desires to be wants that reinforced. A person who wants to
please others and be praised may be making up for a lack of praise from a parent. They may have
the ego of a child looking for the approval of their father. They may be positively motivated by
praise and may be even more eager about winning praise if it comes from an older male. Playing
to a person’s ego is an extreme way to motivate an agent. Extreme care should be taken to ensure
that an agent’s ego is not harmed in any way.

The acronym MICE has been used in intelligence circles for a very long time to explain key
motivational factors, but I believe there is another acronym that can explain a number of human
behaviors outside of MICE. The acronym is FALL.

F stands for fear.

Many people are motivated by fear. Fear of loss, fear of scarcity, fear of sickness, fear of death.
This may seem similar to coercion but, this is not a fear that needs to be applied by anyone else.
Fear is a motivation for many and has played a large role in guiding human action throughout
history.

A stands for anger.

Anger is the driving force behind crimes of passion and revenge. Anger can drive grudges, wars,
and generational feuds. There is an old espionage saying that you should never piss off anyone
who you are going to leave alive. The point of this saying is that any living person can be
dangerous to you when angry enough. Don’t make people angry. Make amends when you do.

The first L stands for love.

Most married people and parents would go to pretty extreme lengths for the people they love.
Many have sacrificed and endured an extraordinary amount for those they love. This is a
powerful driver of behavior.

The second L stands for laziness.

Most of us have taken a shortcut to get out of work or done something to avoid getting off of the
 couch. Occasional laziness is extremely common, but some people are motivated by a persistent
laziness. They will go to great lengths to get out of work. Many conmen have taken advantage of
the laziness of others. Many criminals have taken advantage of this kind of laziness. A lot of
behavior that we observe can correctly be explained by laziness.

MICE and FALL can be used to motivate and help us understand and empathize with others.
Empathy starts with asking good questions, Both to yourself and others. When you ask yourself
why another person is behaving in the way that they are or ask others questions about how they
are feeling, that’s when empathy can begin.
Just like marksmanship, empathy is a skill set that can be developed. In rare occasions, it may
come naturally to some people. Even in these circumstances, empathy needs to be practiced, or
the skill will become weaker. The true empath as rare. I have heard many people identify
themselves as empathic by nature. In reality, these people are sensitive individuals and project
their own feelings onto others. This is not empathy. In fact, it is for us to tame our own feelings
when attempting to be empathetic. Our feelings act as white noise, interfering with our ability to
understand the feelings of others.

Individuals who seek to logically understand the world can have a very hard time being
empathetic. Human beings are not inherently logical. They behave based on the limited
knowledge we take in through our imperfect senses, informed by our flawed minds, and filtered
through our fickle emotions. When dealing with people, focus on feelings.

Section 6: The Bugging

Throughout modern history we’ve seen many environmental and geopolitical events that have
caused panic among the populace. These have included pandemics, epidemics, endemics,
blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyberattacks, riots, looting, and wars. This has led to an
increased interest in survivalism, emergency prepping, and tactical combat. The concept of
“bugging out” has become popular and many lists for items to include in a “bug out bag” can be
found online. Many of these lists are quite good, and I wouldn’t discourage anyone from having
a “bug out” bag or plans to flee their homes if the need should arise. However, this chapter aims
to make the case that “bugging out” is rarely the best course of action. Inversely, I advocate
hunkering down when you can.

I have a friend who lives in the southern United States, which is much more vulnerable to natural
disasters than the Midwest region that I call home. I would consider this woman an expert in
packing a bug out bag. In fact, she has made a considerable amount of money teaching others
how to pack and prepare a bug out bag and “survival prep”. When a severe weather event hit her
home state, she was far better prepared than most people would be. I’ve heard many stories of
people evacuating their homes without any plan or destination, totally reliant on GPS, without
food or water to last any significant amount of time.

They leave their homes because of danger and make their way into a completely unknown
situation. This particular woman knows her stuff and stays far better prepared. She has a
destination to flee to, physical maps and the skill to read the maps, a compass, fuel, and enough
food and water to sustain her and her small family for a significant amount of time.
 The only problem is that the destination she had planned to bug out to, on the other side of the
state, was now inaccessible. She ended up sheltering in her car. She had fled her home based on
panic. Unfortunately, she had realized too late that many other people were fleeing their homes
in a panic as well. This led to both congested roadways and empty store shelves.

The reality of the tropical storm that she was fleeing had not been as dangerous as the local
media had predicted. Had she stayed home, her family would have had to endure multiple days
without electricity, but would have been more comfortable and had far greater resources.
Unless you must evacuate your home due to life-threatening circumstances, hunkering down in
your home is always a much better option than bugging out. That is something that you really
need to be realistic about. If a storm is heading your way, how realistic is the threat? Don’t stay
in your house and try to “ride it out” if you are going to be in danger for your life, or worse yet,
putting family in danger. You also need to make sure you’re not going to tie up resources
because you need to be rescued later. Be smart and be realistic.

Traveling away from your home means that you can only carry a fixed amount of supplies with
you. Contrarily, you can fortify your home well in advance of any emergency situation. You will
have clothing, shelter, blankets, and access to a bathroom in your home.

Having a “home court advantage is not something to give up lightly. You know your home. You
know the terrain. Furthermore, you understand the environment. You can control the physical
security much better than you can when you are away from home. If you have to defend your
self, being at home not only means that you will have the advantage of knowing your
surroundings, but legally you usually have the right to defend your home and have the right to be
there.

The value of community should not be overlooked either. You may be able to cooperate with
your neighbors to mutually share food, defend each other, and provide first aid and medical
treatment for each other.

There are certainly cases when “bugging out” is the right course of action, but remaining in your
home is advantageous, when possible. It’s best to be prepared for both courses of action.

Section 7: The Order

In Street Level Spycraft, I wrote a bit about Anarchism and the ways you can apply tools
developed by Anarchists to your life. Anarchists historically have been some of the best
practitioners of espionage. They have been involved in some of the most infamous
assassinations, bombings, and, acts of sabotage in history.

Before I start, you may have an image in your head of what an Anarchist is. Whatever you are
envisioning, it most likely falls short of reality.

Anarchism is an extremely diverse philosophy with many branches. There are Anarcho-
Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarcho-Feminsts and Anarcho-Christians. Anarchism
encapsulates dozens of philosophies that sometimes have very little to do with each other. It
would not be possible to lump historical Anarchists names like Tolstoy, Gandhi, Ralph Waldo
 Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Charlie Chaplin, and Noam Chomsky together as part of a
uniform belief system. Some Anarchists believe that violence to achieve political goals is
acceptable while many others do not.

I plan to examine some examples of violent Anarchists, but it is not an endorsement of violence.
I personally only believe in violence for self-defense purposes, consistent with my Anarchist
school of thought.

It is important to note that Anarchism is often presented as a synonym with chaos. This is a
fallacious idea pushed by an ill-informed and dishonest media.

Anarchists believe in spontaneous order, an order based on voluntary, mutually beneficial

cooperation. Anarchists see the state as coercive, warmongering, and amoral. That belief in
spontaneous order is universal among Anarchists, though we might define it differently. The
concept of spontaneous order also has wonderful espionage applications.

An organization with a rigid power structure is easy to target. We can easily identify the second
in command of a hostile military and target that person because of the rigid power structure. Law
enforcement knows that targeting high ranking members of criminal gangs can topple the entire
gang because of the rigid power structure that the gang has.

In contrast, left wing Anarchist groups like those commonly known as “AntiFa” don’t have a
structure or sometimes even a name. It is much harder to target this amorphous group. There is
no “leader” and no real structure.

Many participants in the group action may not even know the identities of those involved. Even
if they were willing to name other members of the group to law enforcement, they may not know
the real names of other members. This formless, amorphous nature also can act as a force
multiplier.

I'd like to illustrate this point with a personal story:

I have lived in Minneapolis or one of its suburbs for my entire life. I’ve never thought of it as a
particularly newsworthy part of the country and I kind of like it that way. However, after the
killing of George Floyd, Minneapolis became the center of the world for a few very long days.
The civil unrest was like nothing I had ever seen. In a news broadcast that became locally
infamous, a rioter declared to the camera crew “We’re coming to the suburbs next”.

Massive panic swept over suburban Minnesota. Citizens rushed to arm themselves and buy
emergency supplies. Many local governments declared a curfew.

The next few nights saw multiple suburban retail locations being looted. Reports on social media
made the situation all the more confusing, spreading rumors that made the mayhem seem even
more rampant. Curfews were hardly needed. Most people were too scared to leave their homes.
The criminals seemed to be numerous, well organized, and efficient.

Of course, that wasn’t the case. A few groups of looters had come to the suburbs looking to take
 advantage of the chaos. These very few small groups were not organized or coordinating with
each other in any way. These criminals behaved in similar ways, with similar objectives, during
the same period of time. It was a case of spontaneous order that acted as a force multiplier.

Many citizens seemed to believe that a mob of villains had descended on the suburbs of
Minneapolis, they had synchronized their watches, and had been coordinating strikes on retail
stores, and timed so precisely that they eluded law enforcement. It was like something from a
Batman movie.

Except, that wasn’t the reality. These weren’t super villains, Anarchists furthering a cause,
revolutionaries, or even protestors. They were disorganized criminals, taking advantage of the
current unrest.

You, too, can use spontaneous order to your advantage simply by being aware of what the mood,
anxieties, beliefs, desires, and needs are of the general populous around you.

Section 8: The Competition

To compete with anyone is to acknowledge that they are your equal and a potential threat to you.
It doesn’t matter how confident you are, how skilled you are, or how much more you know. I
witnessed this first hand when I was involved in Mixed Martial Arts. Much more skilled fighters
often get knocked out by weaker opponents. I’ve seen it happen firsthand.

Sometimes they don’t respect their opponent enough and let their defenses down. It might be
because they have gotten so cocky that they don’t train properly. It might be that they take
chances that they wouldn’t otherwise. Whatever the reason, just the fact that two MMA fighters
are competing means that they are both in the same league.

If you feel the need to compete with anyone at work or for a romantic interest, you are
acknowledging that you are in the same league. Refuse to compete with them. Turn your back on
them. Treat them like you would treat a feeble-minded younger sibling. Be helpful towards them.
Do not be in any way mean or combative towards them.

Whatever you do, don’t treat them like a threat. Don’t respect them as an equal. Never take them
too seriously. Make it clear in your mind that you don’t find them threatening. It is crucial that
you don’t think of them as a threat, and you are not threatened by them. If they were threatening
to you and were ever in your league the shift in how you perceive them will ultimately show in
your actions. Your actions will influence everyone around you. If they were ever in your league,
they will quickly find themselves downgraded. You are in a league of your own. You need to
believe it and should behave accordingly.

Section 9: The Duality

To explain the concept of hard vs. soft security, I’m going to use the example that of an event I
attended. I once attended an event that had many speakers, one being a sitting United States
president. I was less interested in seeing the president speak than I was in his security detail. I
would imagine that a sitting president would have pretty impressive Secret Service protection
 and from what I observed, he did. The amount of control that they had over the area was
impressive and overwhelming.

It was clear to me that the Secret Service had learned from presidential assassination attempts of
the past. No one could have gotten any dangerous object within viewing distance of the
president.

There was also a small army that would make escape impossible for any potential assassin. The
crowd was being tightly controlled by almost a hidden hand. It was very clear that the Secret
Service had everything under their control. We were watched and scrutinized constantly. This
was after I had already been through an advanced security screening.

As impressive as the security situation appeared, I understood that there was an immense amount
of preparation and protective measures taken that wasn’t immediately apparent.

The Secret Service would be aware of every turn and curve of the presidential motorcade’s route.

Every moment of his visit would be planned with a precision that would put even the finest
Swiss clockmaker to shame. If anyone made any threatening movements, the guy in the crowd
next to them could potentially be a special agent in plain clothes that had covertly been
concealed in the crowd. Many years later I would meet a law enforcement officer that was part of
that security detail and the way that he had explained plans to exfiltrate the president in the event
of a threat was extremely impressive.

Both hard security and soft security were utilized at that event. Both are critically important to
the success of the United States Secret Service. Both can also be significant to your own security
and the security of those around you.

When you can see a Secret Service agent or a police officer, that is hard security. A bouncer with
large muscles outside a nightclub is another example of this kind of security. The point of it is to
make people aware of its presence, intimidate, and let everyone know that it’s not a good idea to
try anything sinister. It’s exactly the same concept as having a guard dog fenced into a front
yard. The homeowner doesn’t want the dog to bite anyone, but act as a deterrent to anyone who
might otherwise enter the property. However, that dog has to also possess a powerful bite. It’s
critical that the hard security isn’t a bluff. A bar may have a muscular bouncer to deter bad
behavior inside the bar with his presence but, if a rowdy patron beats that bouncer up one night
or the bouncer proves to be a coward, it will inevitably attract more trouble for the bar. The
bouncer not only has to appear strong, but he also has to be strong. Hard security actually has to
be hard and can’t just appear that way.

On the other hand, soft security is like having undercover agents in the crowd while the president
is speaking. No one sees the soft security. It’s not meant to be noticed. It isn’t supposed to
intimate anyone. Security of this nature must be very skillful. It needs to be able to react quickly
and effectively if a threat should materialize but, it can not react to false threats. Once the soft
security is forced to act, it is no longer “undercover” and can’t function as soft security.
However, when this type of security is discovered it does have a force multiplying effect. Most
people will inevitably conclude that if one undercover security agent was present, there must be
more.

How many more? It will be unclear if the undercover security presence consists of two agents or
two hundred agents. Maybe a significant percentage of the crowd is undercover. It’s an unknown
factor. Vladimir Putin was said to be delighted when the United States caught a ring of Russian
spies in New York for this very reason. Now the Americans would have to wonder how many
more spies were in their midst.

Historically, totalitarian regimes have used this tactic with their “secret police”. After the
existence of these secret police became public knowledge, gossip, rumors, and active
imaginations would multiply the threat of these forces. A citizen would not know if his neighbor
or coworker could be an agent of these police. The paranoia would cause him to police himself
much more carefully.

Ordinary people can engage in this concept for themselves. For example, open carry versus
concealed carry of a firearm is a good example of this. When a person openly carries a firearm,
the firearm is holstered in a way that is on full display. It’s clear that this person is armed and
might act as a visual deterrent to anyone who may have violent intentions. The drawback to this
is that this individual can make themselves a target. They are a known entity and a mass shooter
may understand that shooting the armed person first will eliminate a threat to their violent action.
Realistically, the chances of this happening are very low, but we should be aware of that danger.

Conversely, the concealed carrier doesn’t act as a visual deterrent. They are equipped (and
hopefully trained) to stop a violent attack if need be but, that isn’t known to the casual observer.
In some instances, it stands to reason that there are some concealed firearms in the area. If I
walked into an event full of military veterans in Texas, I would assume that many of them would
be concealing firearms. This would have the same effect as the “secret police” discussed earlier. I
would not know if ten people in the room were carrying, twenty people in the room were
carrying, or only two were carrying. I just know that it’s not a room that would be a good target
for a robbery.

It is precisely because of this “unknown” factor that I personally appreciate concealed carry far
more than open carry. I want the bad guys to imagine that anyone could be armed and being
violent could have deadly consequences.

Of course, this applies to the guy walking around looking buff, wearing shirts with skulls all over
it. He looks like a tough guy. He will usually signal that he’s not the guy that anyone should try
to mess with.

Occasionally, looking like a tough guy can invite challenges. In my experience, most well-
trained and capable people tend towards the soft approach. They look pretty average, preferring
to look both nonthreatening and unworthy of attention. A lot of really dangerous individuals look
like average guys. They may either have average bodies or wear clothes that conceal a muscular
build.
 Both hard and soft security are important for different reasons and at different times. As an
individual, you may want to utilize both at different times and in different situations. However,
studies show that individuals who appear as soft targets are targeted by criminals far more often,
so it may be preferable to engage in at some hard security for personal safety.

On a closing note, if you are going to carry a firearm, please get yourself well-trained and
educated on how to use it. You can be an asset or a liability. You can deter crime. However, you
aren’t an asset to anyone if you shoot yourself in the foot.

Section 10: The Privacy

Privacy is dead. For the most part. Securing privacy is big business. Breaking through that
security is also a lucrative industry. I had originally intended to talk about some surveillance
methods in this section, but these methods are being developed at such a rapid pace that this
section would become outdated very quickly. Instead, this section will be very brief and to the
point: Opt for low tech methods of operating whenever possible.

Any device that connects to the internet is constantly communicating data. It is not only
collecting data for the company that sells it, but many others might buy that data, government
entities can access that data with (or often without) a warrant, and malicious actors are
continuously getting better at stealing your information and encroaching on your privacy.

Cybersecurity professionals are indeed working diligently to improve ways to keep your data
secure, malicious parties (including foreign governments) are also working hard to breach that
emerging security. This results in a sort of digital arms race. Large companies and nation states
spend a lot of money on this arms race. You, as an individual, do not have the resources to be
competitive in that particular race. If you believe that you do, you are so far behind that you can’t
even see what the competition looks like. You probably aren’t even on the right track.

John O. Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was retired when a group
of teenagers hacked his email in an attempt to find information that would prove the existence of
extraterrestrial life. These boys hatched a scheme that involved lying to several customer service
representatives to gather Mr. Brennan’s personal information. It was really that simple. They
tricked some guys into giving up some of Brennan’s information and used that information to get
some other information. There was no technical wizardry involved. They didn’t sit down with a
bunch of computer code like a movie hacker might do. They just told some lies to a bunch of
overworked employees.

John Brennan is someone who has lied to the American people on more than one occasion. I
certainly am no fan of his. He also had been acting as more of a bureaucrat than and intelligence
officer for many years before his retirement from the agency. He probably was not operating on
the cutting edge of cybersecurity. Even still, we must give Brennan the credit he is due. He had a
long and successful career as both a Near East and South Asian intelligence analyst, station chief
in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center before later becoming
the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world.

John Brennan is no dummy and he understands security. In his case, the human element proved a
 security weakness. The human factor is always a liability. If John Brennan couldn’t protect
against it, realistically, how much better can we expect to?

All that you or I can do is make it just a little harder to breach our privacy. We can think of our
security as a layered approach. We want to set up as many layers of protection as possible.
VPNs, encrypted communications like Signal and Telegram, and Protonmail for encrypted email
are all just more layers. Internet and cellular service providers, reliance on cellular towers, apps
that are constantly transmitting data, and device software and hardware all leave us
compromised.

Most people never even think about how much privacy they trade for a negligible amount of
convenience. Sure, using your phone to see who is at your door may be nice, but the privacy
nightmare it can create is much less nice. A barking dog might not be able to offer the same
amount of convenience or make you feel that you have the latest gadget, but no one will hack
your dog. It doesn’t need to be a big scary dog, but one that will bark when someone comes to
the door. There’s a reason dogs have been used for security so often throughout history. That’s
kind of what we’re going for here: old school. Replace your smartwatch with an analog one.
Ditch your digital assistant. Stop compromising privacy for convenience.

Section 11: The Question

Why? It’s a simple question that may avert disaster. The same concept can be found in the Latin
“Cui Bono” or “To whose benefit?”.

During the American occupation of Afghanistan, there were several stories of “informant”
farmers reporting that the neighboring farmer was a member of a terrorist organization or that his
farm was being used to aid the cause of America’s enemies.

The “enemy” farmer would then be bombed or taken into custody, which would allow the
“informant” farmer to enjoy less competition.

This story has been repeated to me by many sources and the location seems to change, which
makes me think that this story is more legend than an actual event. It may also be an
amalgamation of numerous events. Whatever the truth, the moral of the story is the same.

Similar stories abound about the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War. During the Phoenix
Program, South Vietnamese allies provided the American Central Intelligence Agency with
information about individuals who were important to the “political infrastructure” of the Viet
Cong. An estimated 1,400 targeted individuals were assassinated or captured by the CIA and
U.S. military members. The Vietnamese informants were trusted almost completely and the
question of “Why are they giving us this information?” was never looked at too deeply. The CIA
was giving the names of political and personal rivals, being used as private hitmen for the South
Vietnamese informants. American resources and human life could have been saved if these
motives had been more deeply questioned.

In American business there are many examples throughout history of large companies such as
Comcast or ExxonMobil pushing for more regulation of their particular industry. Why?
 This practice is known as regulatory capture. These regulations act as a barrier to entry for any
would-be competitors. It also benefits the larger companies that can afford the expense to
comply with these new regulations, while smaller competitors will either be driven out of
business or be severely harmed by the costs of compliance.
People typically act in their own self interests. It doesn’t always disqualify their information or
work, but it always pays to scrutinize motives and ask why.

Section 12: The Prep

Many of us like to procrastinate. I certainly do. It’s natural to want to put off chores or mundane
tasks until tomorrow. In fact, as much as it is a bad idea to “kick the can down the road” as a
general rule, sometimes it can be beneficial for our mental health to give ourselves a break. We
may come home from a tough day and need to decompress before doing the laundry. There are
consequences for procrastination, but often these consequences are insignificant and acceptable.

It might annoy your roommate or spouse if you leave dirty dishes in the sink. Procrastinating on
cutting the grass might bug your neighbor or even your local government. It’s best not to make
these things a habit, but it isn’t a matter of life and death if these tasks are put off until tomorrow
on a rare occasion. Letting these chores pile up will probably only result in more chores for you
eventually. That’s not the end of the world.

However, you can not procrastinate when it comes to your safety or the safety of those around
you. As an example, I live in the Midwest. On cold winter days, we hate to get out of our
vehicles and pump gasoline. We frequently try to wait until it’s warmer. That warmer weather
typically doesn’t arrive until long after we’ve been forced by necessity to stand out in subzero
temperatures filling up our tank.
So you’re at work all day, which is in a less than desirable neighborhood. You’re exhausted It’s
dark and brutally cold. You’ve been putting off stopping at the gas station, but you won’t make it
home if you don’t. Now you are not only in a situation where you need to stop at the gas pump in
a dangerous neighborhood, on a dark and frigid night, but your senses are also dulled by fatigue.

You’re driving home from a fun day at the beach with your family. Everyone is a little sunburnt
and the kids are definitely more than a little crabby. If you’re being honest, the adults in the car
are also just a little crabby. A long day of family fun can really be draining. You just want to get
home. Unfortunately, you notice that you need to stop for gas. You try to find somewhere to pull
off of the highway. You switch lanes. Maybe it’s because of the sun exposure fatigue, but you
accidentally cut a guy off. He goes absolutely insane. He starts tailgating you, honking at you,
and you can see him mouthing swear words. He starts following you, being sure to stay closely
behind your vehicle. The other driver seems unhinged and you can’t predict what he’ll do at any
given moment. To make matters worse, the kids are freaking out and your spouse is screaming at
them to keep them quiet. You are driving your car on an empty gas tank. It may be dangerous for
you to get out at a gas station, but it would also be dangerous to run out of gas.

In both of these hypothetical situations, it’s easy to see how procrastination leaves us vulnerable.
You can’t afford to put off matters of safety until tomorrow. Keep your vehicle fueled up and
maintained, keep any self-defense tools or weapons in good working order, keep your body in
 good physical condition, your mind sharp, and all security measures in working order.

Don’t let the little things like smoke alarm batteries and flashlights be forgotten either. Keep
your self-defense and security capabilities in good working order and then you can forget about
them for awhile, because they’re ready when you need them. Prepare for the worst and hope for
the best.

Section 13: The Entry

I include this chapter for a twofold purpose: To let you know that you can harness entryism for
your own purposes and conversely to warn anyone who manages or owns an organization to be
aware and vigilant of entryism. The ramifications of entryism can be devastating to an
organization. As I write this, I am associated with two different organizations that are currently
seeing the results of entryism.

One is an entryism that favors me and one is not, although in the latter case, it’s also a case of
cronyism and corruption. In the former case, our detractors would argue that it’s a case of
corruption as well. I suppose it depends on how you define the word. I suppose all entryism
assumes an element of corruption.

The term “entryism” is usually a political term. It refers to infiltration and subversion of an
organization or entity. Most Americans will recognize the examples of Democratic Socialists
infiltrating and transforming the Democratic Party or (at different points in history) either
libertarians or nationalists infiltrating the Republican Party. Of course, populists have, at
different times in history, infiltrated and transformed both parties.

However, even though the term typically refers to the infiltration of a political party, it really can
apply to any organization.

An individual who seeks a position of power in a company can just as well encourage application
and hiring of friends, loyal parties, and utilization of loyal vendors. One individual could
transform the entire culture of an organization by encouraging entryism in this way. Of course,
this can be a positive or a negative. That can largely depend on your point of view, and in the
event that an organization is infiltrated for the purpose of destroying it, a negative can be
disguised as a positive. It’s sort of a Trojan horse approach.

Section 14: The Pains

Every living creature in the natural world understands on an instinctual level that physical pain is
to be avoided. All animals in nature will either attack or flee from the source of physical pain.
Human beings intrinsically react to physical pain in the same way, but have a few additional
considerations. Humans won’t just behave this way when stimulated by physical pain, but will
intrinsically either shrink away from or lash out at the source of emotional pain as well.
Moreover, human beings have a unique sense of anticipating future physical or emotional harm.

In our modern society, it is rare that a disagreement devolves into physical violence. For
example, in modern suburban society a dispute with a neighbor over a property line may with the
help of a city official or a court of law. However, throughout most of human history, this
disagreement would likely turn violent. This somewhat mundane property dispute might lead to
murder.

Even though violence is unlikely to happen in our world, we still instinctually try to avoid the
possibility of this pain. We don’t want to endure the physical pain of a possible attack from our
neighbor. We also want to avoid the emotional pain that may result from a feud with our
neighbors. It certainly doesn’t feel good to have our neighbors dislike us.

This fear of either physical or emotional pain causes us to squander many opportunities. We let
others treat us poorly because we don’t want to confront them. We never ask out the woman we
would like to date for fear of rejection. We don’t pursue the job we want because we don’t want
to look foolish when we don’t get hired. In these cases we aren’t actually letting pain stop us, but
anticipation of possible pain. The fear of harm actually causes us harm.

Of course, the possibility of experiencing pain is always present in our lives. The best way to
deal with it isn’t to hide ourselves away from potential harm, but inoculate against the associated
fear.

This means exposure. This is the most valuable thing that I have taken away from my time
studying mixed martial arts. I have been punched, kicked, and choked many times. I’ve had
pressure applied to my arms, my legs, and my neck. I’ve been assaulted in almost every manner
that an unarmed human can assault another human being. Furthermore, I’ve been hit hard by
men who were specifically training to hit hard.

It taught me that getting hit is nothing to fear. It’s survivable. Not only that, but it is never as bad
as you think it will be. Exposing yourself to it is the best way to inoculate yourself against it, just
as being exposed to a virus will do the same.

Join an MMA or a boxing gym, take some Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu classes. Find a martial art that
allows you to spar. Get hit. Get thrown around. Allow yourself to get a little rough. You don’t
have to do it for a long time, but give it enough time to learn the basics. You will both get hit and
learn to avoid getting hit. You will learn that you are not as fragile as you may have once
thought.

Likewise, expose yourself to emotional pain, disappointment, and rejection. Apply for jobs that
seem out of your reach. Go out on dates that probably won’t work out. Do this in quantity,
knowing that you will most likely be disappointed and rejected. Do not do this with a particular
goal in mind. In this case, the journey is the destination. Lean into these two most feared pains.
When you no longer fear them, you will be a very difficult individual to coerce or intimidate.

Section 15: The Glomar

We’re going to start this section off with a fun bit of espionage history. It’s become a popular
trope in spy fiction. Most people are familiar with the Glomar Response. They’ve heard it in
some movie somewhere. They just aren’t aware of its origin. Before we discuss the practical
applications of the Glomar Response, let’s delve into the history.
 In 1968, the Soviet ballistic missile submarine K-129 went missing without explanation
somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. The Soviet Union suspected the Americans of sabotage, but
concluded that it was probably a mechanical issue and abandoned searching for the sub after two
months. The Americans couldn’t pass up the opportunity decided to find the K-129 themselves.
The value of the K-129 stemmed not just from the code books and nuclear warheads onboard,
but also the chance to understand the manufacturing process behind the rival power’s
submarines.

If the U.S. knew how the K-129’s sonar systems operated, or the mechanisms by which the
submarines kept quiet, they could improve their ability to detect them. An expensive effort was
made to discover the submarine’s wreckage. The American effort eventually paid off, locating
the K-129 on the bottom of the Pacific.

The Central Intelligence Agency was tasked with recovering the K-129 and many creative
solutions were proposed to recover it. The idea of pumping enough gas underneath it to bring it
to the surface was ultimately shot down, as was surrounding it with special flotation devices.
One of the wackier ideas even took inspiration from an arcade claw machine. This was the idea
that the CIA eventually decided upon. They also decided that this plan must be kept secret from
the Soviets. They needed a cover story for the expedition, deemed Project Azorian.

For that stage of the operation, eccentric businessman Howard Hughes would be recruited. The
Hughes Glomar Explorer would officially be a mining vessel operated by Hughes.

With the cover story and plan in place, the Glomar Explorer set about it’s task to procure the K-
129. Unfortunately for the CIA, as the claw mechanism slowly lifted the submarine, the K-129
broke apart and a large portion of the submarine sunk back to the ocean floor. This project was
kept shrouded in secrecy for many years, with the media pushing the U.S. government for details
of possible CIA involvement. Eventually a CIA spokesperson came up with a way to both avoid
officially lying to the press and withholding any actual details from them. “We can neither
confirm nor deny”. This is one of the most infamous phrases in espionage history and would
forever be tied to the vessel at the heart of this incident.

The story of Project Azorian is complex and spans many years. The previous reference to it was
an attempt at a brief summation. This section is not about Project Azorian. This section is simply
about “The Glomar Response”.

The spokesperson who first uttered the phrase “We can neither confirm nor deny” was not
winking as he made this statement, but he may as well have been. This phrase obviously hints at
CIA involvement. The press knew it. The spokesperson knew it. The American people who
hadn’t previously known now knew it.

In fact, not only is a Glomar Response an admission by omission, but it allows the imagination to
run wild. A wild imagination will create a story that is far more interesting than the truth. This
can be achieved with any evasive response.

You may have an extremely mundane job. A straightforward answer on a first date about your
 job might not be captivating but, answering, “I’d rather not say until we get to know each other
better.” Might make your date’s mind wander for a while.

It could be unwise to tell your gossiping coworkers exactly what you think of the new boss, but
an answer of “No comment” will probably relay your feelings while still being too ambiguous to
get you into trouble.

It may often lead people to make assumptions about you and overlay their thoughts and values
onto you. Since they have a strong hatred of some political figure, an evasive response may
cause the assumption that you are on the same political side. Of course, you said no such thing.

A Glomar Response can make you seem more knowledgeable and save you from having to
discuss a topic that you know nothing about or help you play dumb in the event that you don’t
want to reveal how much you really do know. It can add mystery or humor, spark rumor or urban
legend, dissuade conflict or convey security. A Glomar Response is truly a versatile tool.

I can neither confirm nor deny how effective this technique has been in my own professional and
private life. I can neither recommend for nor against adopting the technique into your own life.

Section 16: The Successes

“It is not always easy. Your successes are unheralded – your failures are trumpeted. I sometimes
have that feeling myself.”
-President John F. Kennedy, speech at CIA Headquarters, November 28, 1961

I’ve sat through a lot of lectures given by former members of the intelligence community. In fact,
I joined the OSS Society for the very purpose of attending lectures by and socializing with intel
professionals.

Many of the OSS Society members are former CIA employees. They often talk about how the
intelligence community’s failures are well published, while their successes are never known. It’s
true that most of these successful accolades will be kept secret for generations. Some author or
historian might tell the story long after it happened. Everyone involved will probably be dead by
that point. On top of that, the intelligence officer’s involved might get an anonymous star on the
CIA Memorial Wall, but that won’t make them famous.

There are some real advantages to this secrecy. Advantages for the CIA, albeit maybe not the
individual intelligence officer. However, that’s not necessarily the case.

When you turn on the news and hear from someone who is a former CIA employee, the CIA
employment is meant add credibility to their name. You don’t know what they did for CIA. They
could have been the world’s greatest secret agent, they could be a bumbling jerk. Theoretically
they could have been the worst officer that CIA ever employed. It doesn’t matter. The
association with CIA gives them authority. They have all the credibility that the CIA name
carries. They might not have any business offering a perspective on Geopolitics, but you’ll
probably never know that. They’re a former CIA super spy, by the way that the news tells it.
 What did they do? How successful were they? That’s classified. It’s a veil of secrecy that
benefits the slob on the news. In fact, I know specific examples of total frauds writing books and
going on news shows that were never associated with CIA at all. How do I know? Agency types
have told me. Not publicly. The agency doesn’t publicly expose these frauds and the frauds are
often protected from criticism by their friends in the media.

This is also good for the agency because adversaries either overestimate or underestimate them.
If they overestimate them, it’s a force multiplier. They have spies everywhere. Countless
conspiracy theories revolve around the all-seeing CIA secretly shapes all events all over the
globe. An adversary that is paranoid about the agency’s reach must expend resources on counter-
intelligence efforts defending against agents of the CIA.
If the enemy underestimates the agency, they leave themselves open to covert attacks that they
don’t bother defending against. They can easily be taken by surprise. They may let their security
become too relaxed. They may neglect further developing their own intelligence agencies. This
underestimation may have both long term and short term benefit.

Either way, the CIA develops a mystique, a legend, and that legend ultimately makes the CIA
more formidable. Many friends of mine with an elite military background accomplish the exact
same thing within our social circles. They are humble and quiet about their backgrounds, which
makes everyone think that they must be hiding some superhuman skill set.

I spent several years training in an MMA gym, stopped doing so when my daughter was born,
and somewhat achieved my own legend. I was known for never tapping out (signaling
submission). I can withstand a lot more pain than most people, but whenever I really got in
trouble I would taunt my training partners until they let me go. I would be on the verge of
sustaining a terrible injury and say something like “You gotta put more muscle into it”.

Whoever I was training with would get the impression that the hold wasn’t working and let go.
No one ever really caught on to this deception. Everyone would talk about how tough I was.

It didn’t actually count for much. After all, there are no prizes for being a good punching bag. I
got my butt kicked on several occasions and my stubbornness only made it worse. Even still, it
won me a lot of respect. I would always downplay it whenever anyone would comment on how
tough I was. I never claimed to be tough. Other gym members would tell stories about me when I
wasn’t around. Stories tend to get bigger with each additional telling. Last I heard, I was some
sort of superman that was impervious to pain. I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to prove my
mere humanity.

You can use this same principle to foster similar rumors, in any area you are even remotely
competent in. As long as you let other people spread rumors, be vague and elusive if it ever
comes up, and don’t prove the rumors wrong. In fact, downplay them. Just make sure you do so
with a wry smile.

Section 17: The MARCH

You should have some basic first aid knowledge. I think that statement is pretty unambiguous. I
 want to be direct that this is the strongest recommendation I can make. No matter what
occupation or role you take in life, a working knowledge of first aid is always an invaluable skill
to have. It has served me well both in my home life and my work life.
Secondarily, you should learn basic CPR. There has only been one occasion that I have used a
skill I learned in a CPR course. However, I have used first aid skills hundreds of times over the
course of my career. I’ve come across far more cuts, contusions, and bruises than I have
restricted airways. That’s been very fortunate. I’m much more comfortable giving first aid than I
am giving CPR. CPR once seemed like a very intimidating skill to learn, but it really hasn’t been
as daunting as I had worried it would be. CPR/First Aid is often bundled into the same class.
These classes are easy to find with a quick internet search. The Red Cross also offers online
courses, so it’s extremely easy to do.

I recommend that for absolutely everyone. In that order. First Aid, and CPR, secondly. Those are
my recommendations to supplement this chapter, which is neither about First Aid nor CPR. This
chapter is actually about another acronym. Yep. Another d*mn acronym.

The acronym MARCH is used in Tactical Combat Casualty Care. Yep. They use an acronym for
that too. TCCC is intended to be trauma life support given on the battlefield as prehospital
combat medicine. It is only to be given when both the injured and the first responder are no
longer in immediate danger. To simplify, it’s meant to keep a soldier alive until they are
transported to a hospital. That’s all the job of anyone giving CPR/First Aid is. Keep this person
alive until the medical professionals get there. That’s it. You’re not going to cure anyone or
expected to work any miracles. Just preserve life until someone who knows what they’re doing
arrives on scene. The second part, which is to only offer care AFTER you are no longer under
fire may or may not apply to you. However, you should likewise make sure that the environment
is safe before giving care. If you catch a bullet, something explodes, or something falls on your
head, you won’t be good to anybody. It is only AFTER the environment is safe that you would
start working through the MARCH acronym.

This acronym is an order of operations. It is meant to help prioritize the care that is most
important to give first. It’s critical to note that consent must be given before you may assist any
person. If the person is unconscious, consent to help is implied.

M stands for Massive hemorrhaging (or massive bleeding, if it is simpler).

Massive blood loss can result in a quick death. The site of bleeding should be covered with a
cloth, pad, or bandage. Pressure should be applied to the site of bleeding. If a cloth, bandage, or
pad is applied and is being bled through, it should not be removed or replaced. Instead, it should
be covered with a new cloth, bandage, or pad. There are other methods for stopping the bleeding,
but these specific methods that require more training. I am only attempting to give the most basic
of methods. Don’t worry. All bleeding stops eventually. It’s a dark joke, but it’s true.

A stands for Airway.

There may be situations where the airway is obstructed. This may be from a foreign object, by
the individual’s tongue, or by vomit or other bodily fluids. If the airway is obviously obstructed
by vomit or any removable matter, get it out of the mouth with a quick swipe with two fingers in
the mouth. All of this must be done gently. We don’t want to injure anyone by jerking their head
around. If this is a situation where you didn’t observe the individual going unconscious, assume
that they could have a neck injury, and you don’t want to make that worse.

Try to avoid pushing any matter further down the trachea by only sweeping as far as you can
easily see inside the open mouth. Don’t shove your fingers down anyone’s throat. Use sweeping
motions rather than digging ones. If the tongue is obstructing the airway, try the jaw thrust
method. Crouch above the head, looking down toward the toes. Grasp the jaw gently but firmly
with both hands, so that you can curve your fingers into the soft flesh of the chin. Gently lift the
jaw to the sky without moving the rest of the head. This helps the tongue to fall to the floor of the
jaw, rather than settling in the airway.

R stands for respiration.

Respiration means breathing. If an individual is not breathing, their life is in danger. Make sure
their chest is rising and falling. Listen for breathing. If there is a problem with respiration, you
may need to go back a step to clear the airway. This is also the step where rescue breaths (mouth-
to-mouth) is given. There are barriers made specifically for the purpose of keeping something
between your mouth and some ugly stranger’s mouth. However, you never have one when you
need it. The important thing when giving rescue breaths is to form a seal that air can’t escape
from. Put that mouth firmly over that ugly stranger’s mouth and plug their nose. Then you’re
ready to put breaths into their lungs. This is an essential part of CPR and you should just take the
d*mn class.
C stands for Circulation
Circulation basically just means blood flowing from the heart to the other areas of the body that
it needs to get to. Check that the heart is beating and check the pulse. Make sure nothing is
cutting off the circulation, like tight clothes or jewelry. If the heart is not beating, this is the time
you’d give chest compressions. Right between the nipples, you’ll want to compress the chest
about two inches. Seriously, just go take the class.
The H is a bit of a lie. There are actually two things that the H could stand for. Hypothermia and
Head injury. The acronym could really be MARCH and pronounced the exact same way, but
someone really wanted to force it to neatly spell out MARCH. I hate all these acronyms.

Anyway, hypothermia is defined by a significant drop in a person’s body temperature. Naturally,

the way to combat hypothermia is to raise this individual’s body temperature. Anything that is
making them colder, like wet clothing, needs to be removed. If a blanket or a sleeping bag is
available, cover them, obviously. You might need to use your own body heat to warm the
individual.

When I was in school they had us watch this series where a bunch of people had to survive in the
woods for some reason. A dude developed hypothermia and some grizzled looking old man
stripped this guy to his underwear, stripped himself to his underwear, and rolled up with this
dude in a sleeping bag. I don’t know if you’re supposed to keep your underwear on, and I doubt
that you are, but at least we didn’t have to see that old man’s penis in school. So yeah, body heat.
Moving on.
So H stands for Head injury as well as Hypothermia. If an individual is breathing and their heart
is beating, but they are unconscious, head injury is always to be assumed. Your job in this
instance isn’t to put ice or anything else on the injury, but keep the head lined up with the spine
and keep the head and neck stable. Don’t move this individual.
If you are going through any steps of this process, either have someone call an ambulance or call
an ambulance yourself. Your phone probably has a speaker function, so you can attend to the
person while calling. If the individual gains consciousness, call an ambulance anyway. They
have a right to refuse service, but you’ll at least get some professionals on scene. No one expects
you to be a medic. You’re just trying to keep this stranger alive until medics arrive. You also are
not required to do even that. However, I’d rather try to sustain this ugly stranger’s life than just
allow them to die without a fight.

Section 18: The Rules

Espionage organizations throughout the ages have had codified sets of operational rules and
guidelines based on the experiences of their operatives. Sometimes they only apply to the
environment and time that the organization is operating in. In other instances, they are timeless.
In either case, when possible, we should read and learn from the accumulated wisdom of those
who came before us. In this section, I will present two sets of such guidelines. The first set will
be from the American Office of Strategic Services.

These are OSS guidelines for operating behind enemy lines during the Second World War:
The first mandate for every OSS operative is to remain undetected while actively procuring the
information you are tasked to discover or completing the objective you have been assigned. A
dead intelligence operative is a useless intelligence operative: a captured one is worse. It is only
in the unfortunate event that you are compromised or exposed that you may-as a last option-
resort to the established hand-to-hand methods to salvage your mission or protect your life.

Your optimal goal must be to never place yourself in a position where utilizing these methods is
necessary for your personal protection. Should such a situation arise, however, realize that if you
have not maintained your skills, you may not retain your life. With that reminder, you are
encouraged to review on a repeated basis the seven fundamental behaviors for effectively
engaging in intelligence activities undetected in the presence and company of the enemy.

Always Behave Casually

Whether you are on routine or particular assignment, it is critical that you behave as casually as
possible. Remember who you are supposed to be and behave confidently and convincingly as
would be expected.

Never Demonstrate Interest

Over-zealousness and impatience will draw undue attention from the most dangerous individuals
around you. Remain invisible by affecting disinterest and complacency.

Be All Things to All Men

Temper your predilections and antipathies; they are the luxuries of men who only need to be
 themselves. They are luxuries of which successful intelligence operatives are deprived.

Play Your Role with Total Integrity

Be who you say you are in thought, word, and deed. Have no reservations in this, for
reservations are the solitary threads that can unravel the fabric.
Always Keep Your Wits About You
But keep them hidden beneath your façade. Do not allow the act of deceiving others to deceive
you, as well. Be the wise man playing the fool but remember which you really are.

Be Ever Prepared to Revise Your Plan

Do not become so invested in the destination that you fail to note changes on your road to it.
Mental flexibility is as vital as the physical kind. The oak that will not bend breaks. Be the
bamboo that adjusts to the wind, the rain, and the snow.
Assess Each Day in Foresight and Hindsight
Begin each day reviewing your plan, leaving as little to chance as possible. Account for every
second of every minute of every hour. End each day the same way. Recall every second of every
minute of every hour. Then, if necessary, adjust your plans for tomorrow.
As you can see, these guidelines offer a lot of wisdom that we can apply to our everyday lives.
The advice to always act casually and to not be overzealous with our interest is good advice
whether we are courting a romantic interest or trying to make a sale at work. The admonition to
keep our wits about us can absolutely benefit us in every area of our lives. Likewise, the
guidelines to be flexible and reflective on our days is universally beneficial.

The next set of rules are known as the “Moscow Rules”. These “rules” are actually a set of
guidelines for operatives of the American Central Intelligence Agency (the successor to the
Office of Strategic Services) to more effectively operate in the most hostile espionage
environment in the world, which happened to be Moscow. These guidelines have changed over
time and constantly are changing in response to a changing intelligence landscape. In fact, the
story of these evolving guidelines is detailed in a best-selling book entitled “The Moscow
Rules”. It’s a great read for anyone who wants to dive deeply into espionage history.

The most popular iteration of the Moscow Rules is codified in the halls of The International Spy
Museum in Washington, DC. There are many lessons that the amateur can learn from them.

THE MOSCOW RULES

1. Assume nothing.
This is pretty straightforward. We often assume things based on our experiences of how the
world works and how people behave. There are a number of cognitive biases that cause us to
make assumptions about the world around us. Recency bias makes us analyze the world based on
our recent experiences. Status quo bias manifests in a very similar way, leading our brains to
believe that the status quo will continue indefinitely. In reality, change is constant, consistent,
and unstoppable. Allowing ourselves to be surprised by this change can keep us from being able
to adapt to it. Normalcy bias is not dissimilar to any of the previously mentioned biases, but is
associated with the minimization of threats. For instance, most of the time an armed mugger will
not harm their victims if the victim complies with the demands of the mugger. However, there
have been cases in which a mugger will harm their victim even after the victim willingly hands
over their valuables. The mugger is willing to commit a crime, so it stands to reason that this
criminal may be erratic and unpredictable. Most of the time a mugger will not stab you, but that
is no comfort to the unfortunate victim that gets stabbed by a mugger. Never assume anything.

2. Never go against your gut

Can you imagine a wild animal ignoring their instincts? It never happens in nature. However,
human beings ignore their gut instincts all the time. Whether a person or a place feels dangerous
or just not right, humans consistently rationalize these feelings away. Sometimes this is because
people do not want to appear impolite or prejudiced. Ignoring their gut because of negative
judgment is unequivocally a miscalculation. Always trust your gut.

3. Everyone is potentially under opposition control.

Both historically and presently, in Moscow and all over the world, anyone can be under the
influence of Russian intelligence. Some of the most trusted American officers have been secretly
working for Russia. When operating in the world of espionage it is impossible to completely
trust anyone. As amateurs, we don’t need to be quite so suspicious, but it is true that anyone can
be untrustworthy. Your taxi driver may attempt to mug you. The housekeeper from the hotel may
steal valuable property from your room. The friend you recently made may be attempting to
entrap you. You don’t know who these people are associated with. Be wary.

4. Don’t look back; you are never completely alone.

Spies don’t look over their shoulders and let the opposition know that they are on to them. As an
amateur, your approach needs to be situationally dependent. There are situations where it is best
to avoid the appearance of “hypervigilance”, always looking over your shoulder like a scared
little bunny. In these situations it is best to act natural, only looking over your shoulder at times
like stopping at a crosswalk or doing some window-shopping, natural circumstances to be
looking around. However, when you are sure of a threat to your safety or that you are being
pursued, you may want to alert your pursuer that you are aware of his presence and will not be
taken by surprise. This does not have to be ic, but can be done by asking for the time, a cigarette,
or something similar. Be careful that you don’t ask for directions or anything that might give the
impression of being lost. You still don’t want to present yourself like an easy target.

5. Go with the flow, blend in

This is pretty much the same concept as “Gray man theory”. Dress in a way that you fit in with
your surroundings. Don’t go to a formal dinner party in tactical gear. Don’t wear your tuxedo to
the beach, regardless of what fictional spies might do. If everyone else around you is celebrating,
don’t present yourself as dour. Likewise, don’t be energetic and outgoing at a funeral. Dress and
act to blend with your surroundings. Do not wear or do anything that would make you
memorable. Avoid brand names and logos that would help to identify you. Cover features and
tattoos that are defining.

6. Vary your pattern and stay within your cover.

 Most people leave the house at the same time every morning, arrive home at the same time of
night, and travel the same route every day. These set behaviors are referred to as a “pattern of
life”. A pattern of life that is too predictable leaves you vulnerable to surveillance, attack,
abduction, or robbery. Don’t be too predictable.

7. Lull them into a sense of complacency.

Complacent and comfortable people make mistakes. We don’t want a vigilant opposition, we
want them complacent and dull.

8. Don’t harass the opposition.

Antagonizing the opposition unnecessarily is a big mistake. As amateurs, antagonizing a
potential attacker or even a rival at work is a careless misstep. If we wish to lull our opposition
into a false sense of complacency, we can’t harass them.

9. Pick the time and place for action.

If I was being followed and wanted to defend myself, I would want to do it on my terms. I would
allow my pursuer to follow me into an ambush. Action is always faster than reaction. When I
choose to act, I have the advantage.

10. Keep your options open.

I hope this is pretty self-explanatory. I always want to be able to adapt to any situation that may
unfold. Furthermore, I don’t want to do anything that would limit my options.

These are two different sets of rules, from two separate eras, from related intelligence
organizations.

Our purposes and application of these rules will look very different. Nonetheless, these rules can
help us in our everyday lives. I have applied them to self-defense, but they can have applications
as diverse as romantic pursuits or career enhancement. With a bit of adaption, these rules can
benefit any and all areas of life.

Section 19: The Engagement

Human beings react to danger in a huge variety of ways. We have all heard of the “fight or
flight” response. “Fight or flight” is an over simplification. Even wild animals don’t necessarily
always fight or flee. I’m from the Midwestern United States. It’s common for Midwesterners to
have a story about a time they either hit a deer with their vehicle or nearly did. The deer doesn’t
know what a pair of headlights actually is, so they just stand and stare. The driver on the other
end often has the choice of hitting the deer or hitting another vehicle.

Just as the deer doesn’t know how to react when caught in the headlights of a vehicle that is
completely alien to nature, many of us are so unfamiliar with actual violence that it is completely
alien as well. Many people who are confronted with violence will freeze up exactly like a deer.
This reaction typically has proven fatal.

Multiple studies have been conducted on the ways individuals act react to threats. Some of the
 most extensive were born out of grizzly necessity.
American soldiers were being ambushed and killed at an alarming rate during the fighting in
Vietnam. Some retraining needed to be done in order to keep these young men from being
surprised and killed. Retraining troops who had already been deep in the carnage of Vietnam
would be difficult.

Quick and efficient training would be a necessity. Training would have to rely on a simple
mindset shift to tweak the instinctual reactions of the soldiers. The soldiers had been reacting in a
diverse number of ways, but were able to be categorized in one of four ways:

The first reaction was to freeze up when an attack came. A Viet Cong fighter (code-named
Charlie by the Americans) would charge the American soldier from a concealed position. Charlie
was usually armed with an edged weapon while the American would be armed with a rifle. In
order for the ambush to be successful, Charlie would have to conceal himself in the jungle until
his adversary so close that a surprise attack would nullify the American’s superior firepower.
Just like the deer that was caught in the headlights, many American soldiers froze when surprised
with the prospect of attack with a bladed weapon. As can be predicted, this response almost
always resulted in the American being killed.

The second response was a flight response. Many American men would simply turn to run. This
tactic was rarely successful. The American soldier was weighed down with far more equipment
than the nimble Vietnamese guerrillas. This would often result in a gruesome death.

The third response was defensive, with the American hoping to shield his fellow soldiers from
attack, standing defensively, waiting to react to Charlie’s ambush. It did have the desired effect
of buying time for the other soldiers. However, a purely reactive response typically resulted in
the death of the individual soldier who adopted this defensive stance.

The final reaction was aggression. Soldiers in this category would charge their attacker and
engage in close combat. In some cases the American soldier would get injured or die, but this
response led to successfully neutralizing the enemy and preserving American life in most cases.

Action is always quicker than reaction. An attacker will always have the upper hand. The
concept of engaging and attacking your attacker can be applied to most areas of life. It doesn’t
matter if it is a physical attack, a rival trying to get a promotion over you at work, or an
accusation being made against you.

Most people will try to avoid conflict or adopt a reactive response. Conversely, the best chance
of success is to adopt an aggressive response.

This should not be misunderstood. Aggressive does not always mean violent. When a coworker
is gossiping about you or your spouse is upset with you, the correct response is not to yell or be
overtly hostile. The best response in this case is not to attack the person, but the underlying
problem. This might mean taking initiative and speaking plainly to the other person involved in
the conflict.
 When someone is trying to outperform you at work, you may have to put more hours in or get
creative. When an accusation is lodged against you, you may have to expose your accuser of
their own wrongdoing and shift the conversation away from you. In any event, being proactive is
the best response. In the event of actual violence, it is best to engage the threat with the most
violent of commitment, ending it quickly.
Whether it be a physical, social, emotional, romantic, or financial, attack, engage the threat, and
destroy it.

Section 20: The Deception

A bridge is said to have structural integrity when it is strong, solid, without cracks, and won’t
sway or shake when the weight it was meant to hold is put upon it. Your opinion of the bridge
does not change its integrity. You may refuse to cross the bridge or dislike how it looks, but that
doesn’t fundamentally change it. People can possess that kind of integrity. The people with the
highest levels of integrity are the worst at telling convincing lies. The only way to really get good
at it is to do it often. There’s a real problem with becoming a good liar though. By the time you
really get good at it, you’ve told a lot of lies. Everyone knows that you’re a liar. It doesn’t matter
how skilled you are at deception. Everybody already knows that you can’t be trusted.

For practical purposes, I advocate that you always be as truthful as possible I understand that it’s
not always possible. Let me correct that. In rare cases, being truthful is not possible. Being
deceptive builds a reputation. It becomes simultaneously difficult to effectively tell the truth and
to effectively lie once you have developed that reputation.

Even if no one else ever catches you lying, you will have to live with the fact that you are
lacking in integrity. When people lack integrity, it’s usually pretty transparent.

Yes, there are body language markers that often indicate deceptiveness. Many people believe that
the inability to make eye contact or nervous fidgeting is a sign of lying. These are potential signs
of lying. There are several others. A closed posture may be a sign of lying. Feet may actually be
the best indicator of deceptiveness. Feet tend to point where a person would like to go. With that
being said, feet will generally be pointing away from someone who we are lying to.

The fact is that none of these markers conclusively indicate lying. If a person is normally fidgety
or does not typically hold eye contact with others, this doesn’t mean they’re lying. To really
predict if a person is lying, it is necessary to know their baseline behavior. When they behave
abnormally, this may be an indicator that an individual is lying. However, in order to know what
is abnormal, we need to have observed over time how an individual would normally behave.

Even still, there are many reasons an individual would be acting oddly. You can use these
indicators to inform a suspicion that someone is lying, but it can never be conclusive. All you
really need is a small indication though, because most people reveal the amount of integrity that
they have in a very short time of knowing them. Most of us get a gut feeling about this within
seconds of meeting a person. If we read these body language indicators, rely on what we know of
an individual’s integrity, and trust our gut we will be able to detect deception with a high degree
of accuracy.
 Section 21: The Hangout
As much as I avoid lying, omission is a different story.

In my line of work, the details of which will also be omitted, confidentiality is both mandated
and a personal value I uphold. I don’t tell lies at work, but I will often tell people that I can’t give
any details because of confidentiality.

It’s pretty common for me to witness medical emergencies, which I will inevitably be asked
about. The first thing I do is reassure anyone asking that they are in no danger. These questions
are typically asked by people that are concerned about safety. I always eliminate that concern
right away. Most regularly, people are just curious whenever they see an ambulance, a police
officer, or a firefighter. It’s critically important to be direct and concise when speaking to these
individuals. Your words will likely fuel their gossip later on.

Now, let’s use a hypothetical situation in which an individual has had a seizure. Seizures are a
fairly commonplace event. I’ve known a lot of individuals with seizure disorders and some of
those individuals experience seizures regularly. I do not enjoy seeing anyone having a seizure, no
matter what kind it is. Nonetheless, I’ve seen it enough so that I don’t panic every time I witness
one. If an ambulance comes to assist with the seizure, it’s going to get some people curious and
maybe even freak some people out. They’ll be seeking answers from someone, and I am
oftentimes that someone.

I will not give names or specific details, but I will explain that an individual had a minor medical
need and give assurance that there is no danger to anyone else and that I am protecting the
individual with the medical need’s confidentiality. This answer is usually enough to satisfy
anyone who asks.

Sometimes a seizure is brought on by drug use. If the seizure was brought on by drugs, I would
need to protect that information. By answering questions in a straightforward manner, I can
typically dissuade further questions.

In this hypothetical example I am sharing information, but omitting details. I’m even admitting
that I am omitting details in the name of confidentiality.

A similar concept has been used in espionage. Intelligence agencies and political operatives may
and often do employ this tactic. This tactic is known as a limited hangout, also known as a partial
hangout. A limited hangout is simply divulging a limited piece of information to conceal a
larger, typically more nefarious, piece of information.

For instance, the United States Department of Defense has previously released several videos of
unidentified flying objects. Why would they do this? Historically, they don’t just inform the
public to let them know what’s going on. There is an agenda behind it. If they were trying to
cover up actual evidence of alien contact, this would be a limited hangout. If anyone were to
claim that the Department of Defense was covering up this evidence, these claims could be
dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Why would the DoD release footage of UFOs if they were
going to cover up the existence of extraterrestrial life? It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to the
 public.

The limited hangout does seem counterintuitive, at first glance. However, if we apply some very
simple psychology, we can see why a limited hangout would be so effective. Human beings are
naturally curious. We seek answers and when we press harder for those answers when we see
that the truth is being hidden from us.

This is the origin of the phrase “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. Censorship, evasiveness, and
refusing to answer questions are evidence that something is being hidden from us, and we will go
to great lengths to find out what that hidden truth is. Conversely, when we are given answers
upfront our curiosity will be satisfied, and we will move on to being curious about something
else. A limited hangout really hides the truth in plain sight.

The term “Modified limited hangout” may be an invention of Richard Nixon’s White House. I
can’t find any evidence of the term being used before that. A modified limited hangout is simply
done when a guilty party omits facts by admitting guilt to a lesser offense. If confronted with
their guilt, they can then declare that they have already confessed, while never fully confessing.

Former United States Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles added his owned twist to the
limited hangout. This twist involved information he divulged to the United States Congress that
was complete misinformation. Dulles wished to cover up the CIA’s intelligence failures in the
wake of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He invented several conspiracy
theories that would lead the Congress and the public on a quest to find answers that would point
away from the CIA. Many of the theories Dulles invented still have plenty of traction today.

So instead of lying, try using a limited hangout. There are various situations in which it can be
noble and warranted.

Conclusion:

Noah’s Ark was built by an amateur. The Titanic was built by professionals. It’s an old saying,
but there’s a lot of truth behind it. The course of history is set by amateurs. Armies have been
destroyed by amateur insurgents and loosely organized militias. Empires have fallen throughout
history because of actions taken by passionate amateurs. In the modern world, amateurs are
exposing corruption better and breaking news far faster than any corporate media conglomerate
can. Large professional organizations are neither nimble enough nor independent enough to
make the impact that amateurs are making. “Citizen journalists” are consistently providing better
journalism than the “professionals”. While working with Matt Kowalski at Kowala Media I
witnessed this consistently. Matt was on the street covering significant events and giving voice to
the real people involved long before the corporate media arrived on the scene. Through our
collaboration I was able to provide him with open-source intelligence that consistently outpaced
large media outlets and law enforcement agencies.

In fact, intelligence agencies are now routinely rely on the OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence)
community because they know that we have access that they do not have. We live in the age of
the amateur, the independent, the hustler. When you employ the information in the text you have
just read, you engage in amateur espionage. Whether it be in your workplace or in your life, it is
information to use as you so choose. Use it wisely.

About the author:

P.J. Agness is the founder of Archangel Protective Intelligence. P.J. teaches several online
courses and has authored many other best-selling books.

These books and courses are available here.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
laughter) was utterly incomprehensible to him on any other
supposition than that of a previous attachment. Counsel then
continued:—
Q. When, after leaving the garden, you were making for the Red
Deer, did you observe any other figure on the hill, going in the same
direction as yourself, but in advance of you?
A. There may have been. I won’t answer for sure.
Q. Will you explain what you mean by that?
A. I was what you might call preoccupied—not thinking much of
anything but my own trouble. But—yes, I have an idea there was
some one.
Q. How was he dressed?
A. I can’t say, sir. I never looked; it’s only a hazy sort of
impression.
Q. Was he far ahead?
A. He may have been—very far; or perhaps it was only the
shadows. I shouldn’t like to swear there was any one at all.
Q. You have heard the witness Henstridge’s evidence. Are you
sure you are not borrowing from it the idea of this second figure, a
sort of simulacrum of yourself?
A. Well, I may be, unconscious as it were. I can’t state anything for
certain.
Q. Were you walking fast as you got near the inn?
A. I dare say I was—fast for me. (Laughter.) What with one thing
and another, my throat was as dry as tinder.
Q. Did you stop, or linger, for any purpose when approaching the
inn?
A. Not that I can remember. I may have. What happened
afterwards has put all that out of my head.
Q. You mean the news awaiting you on your return?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you can’t tell me, I suppose, whether or not, as you
climbed the hill, your coat-collar was turned up and the peak of your
cap pulled down?
A. It’s like enough they were. I had put the things on anyhow in my
hurry. But it’s all a vague memory.
Counsel. Very well. You can stand down.
 Daniel Groome, gardener, was next called. He stated that he was
sweeping up leaves in the drive to the east side of the house—that is
to say, the side furthest from the copse—on the afternoon of the
murder. Had heard the stable clock strike three, and shortly
afterwards had seen the young master come out of the head of the
Bishop’s Walk and go towards the house, which he entered by the
front door. He was looking, he thought, in a bit of a temper: but the
young master was like that—all in a stew one moment over a little
thing, and the next laughing and joking over something that
mattered. Had wondered at seeing him back so soon from the
shooting, but supposed he had shot wild, as he sometimes would,
and was in a pet about it. Did not see him again until he, witness,
was summoned to the copse to help remove the body.
Q. During the time you were sweeping in the drive, did you hear
the sound of a shot?
A. A’many, sir. The gentlemen was out with their guns.
Q. Did any one shot sound to you nearer than the others?
A. One sounded pretty loud.
Q. As if comparatively close by?
A. Yes, it might be.
Q. From the direction of the Bishop’s Walk?
A. I couldn’t rightly say, sir. It wasn’t a carrying day. Sounds on
such a day travel very deceptive. It might have come from across the
road, or further.
Q. At what time did you hear this particular shot?
A. It might have been three o’clock, or a little later; I couldn’t be
sure.
Q. Think again.
A. No, I couldn’t be sure, sir. I shouldn’t like to swear.
Q. Might it have been nearer half-past three?
A. Very like. I dare say it might.
This point was urged, but the witness persisted in refusing to
commit himself to any more definite statement.
John Tugwood, coachman, Edward Noakes, groom, and Martha
Jolly, lodge-keeper, were called and examined on the same subject.
They had all distinguished, or thought they had distinguished, the
louder shot in question; but their evidence as to its precise time was
so hopelessly contradictory that no reliance whatever could be
placed on it.
Sergeant-Detective Ridgway deposed that, having been put in
charge of the case by Sir Calvin Kennett, he had proceeded to make
an examination of the spot where the body had been found. This
was some twenty-four hours after the commission of the alleged
crime, and it might be thought possible that certain local changes
had occurred during the interval. He understood, however, that the
police had, when first called in, conducted an exhaustive
investigation of the place, and that their conclusions differed in no
material degree from his own, so that he was permitted to speak for
them in the few details he had to place before the jury. Briefly, his
notes comprised the following observations:—The measured
distance from the wicket in the boundary hedge to the tree against
which the witness, Mr. Hugo Kennett, had stated that he rested his
gun was nineteen and a quarter yards: thence to the beech-tree by
which the body had been found was another fifteen feet. Between
the wicket and the first tree there was a curve in the track, sufficient
to conceal from any one standing by the second, or inner, tree the
movements of one approaching from the direction of the gate. All
about this part of the copse, down to the hedge, was very dense
thicket, which in one place, in close proximity to the first tree
supporting the gun, bore some tokens as of a person having been
concealed there. If such were the case, the movements of the
person in question had been presumably stealthy, the growth
showing only slight signs of disturbance, not easily detected. His
theory was that this person had entered possibly by the gate from
the road, had crept along the path, or track, until he had caught a
glimpse through the trees of the deceased in conversation with Mr.
Kennett, had then slipped into the undergrowth and silently worked
his way to the point of concealment first-mentioned, where he would
be both eye and ear witness of what was passing between the two,
and had subsequently, whether torn by the passion of revenge or of
jealousy, issued noiselessly forth, some few minutes after Mr.
Kennett’s departure, seized up the gun, and either at once, or
following a brief altercation, shot the deceased dead as she was
moving to escape from him. Conformably with this theory, there was
no sign of any struggle having occurred; but there were signs that
the murderer had moved and conducted himself with great caution
and circumspection. Unfortunately no evidence as to footprints could
be adduced, the ground being in too hard and dry a state to record
their impression. Finally, he was bound to say that there was nothing
in his theory incompatible with the assumption that the prisoner was
the one responsible for the deed. On the other hand, it was true that
the man’s movements between the time when the witness
Henstridge had seen him descending towards the road, and the time
of the commission of the crime—which could not have been earlier
than three o’clock—had still to be accounted for. But it was possible,
of course, that he had occupied this interval of three-quarters of an
hour in stalking, and in finally running to earth his victim. If he could
produce witnesses to prove the contrary, the theory of course
collapsed.
The Sergeant delivered his statement with a hard, clear-cut
precision which was in curious and rather deadly contrast with the
nervous hesitation displayed by other witnesses. There was a
suggestion about him of the expert surgeon, demonstrating, knife in
hand, above the operating table; and in a voice as keen and cold as
his blade.
Raymond, Baron Le Sage, was the next witness called. It was
noticed once or twice, during the course of the Baron’s evidence,
that the prisoner looked as if reproachfully and imploringly toward his
master.
Q. The prisoner is your servant?
A. He is my servant.
Q. Since when, will you tell me?
A. He has been in my service now over a year.
Q. You took him with a good character?
A. An excellent character.
Q. He is a Gascon, I believe?
A. Yes, a Gascon.
Q. A hot-blooded and vindictive race, is it not?
A. A warm-blooded people, certainly.
Q. Practising the vendetta?
A. You surprise me.
 Q. I am asking you for information.
A. I have none to give you.
Q. Very well; we will leave it at that. On the afternoon of the
murder, about half-past two, you entered the Bishop’s Walk?
A. I had been out driving with Miss Kennett, and, passing the gate,
asked her wither it led. She told me, and I decided to go by the path,
leaving her to drive on to the house alone.
Q. Why did you so decide?
A. I had caught a glimpse among the trees of, as I thought, the
maid, Annie Evans, and I wished to speak with her.
Q. Indeed? (Counsel was evidently a little taken aback over the
frankness of this admission.) Would you inform me on what subject?
A. I had been accidental witness the night before of the scrimmage
between her and Louis already referred to, and I wished at once to
apologise to her for Louis’s behaviour, and to warn her against any
repetition of the punishment she had inflicted.
Q. On what grounds?
A. On the grounds that, the man being quick-tempered and
impulsive, I would not answer for the consequences of another such
assault. (Sensation.)
Q. And what was the deceased’s answer?
A. She thanked me, and said she could look after herself.
Q. Anything further?
A. Nothing. I went on and joined my friend, Sir Calvin, in the
house.
Q. The deceased, while you were with her, offered no sort of
explanation of her presence in the copse?
A. None whatever.
Q. And you did not seek one?
A. O, dear, no! I should not have been so foolish. (Laughter.)
Q. Did you speak to the prisoner on the subject of the assault?
A. At the time, yes.
Q. And what did you gather from his answer?
A. I gathered that, in his quick ardent way, he was very much
enamoured of the girl’s beauty.
Q. And was correspondingly incensed, perhaps, over her rejection
of his advances?
 A. Not incensed. Saddened.
Q. He uttered no threat?
A. No.
Q. On the afternoon of the murder, on your return to the house, as
just described, you inquired for the prisoner?
A. I inquired for him, then, and again later on our return from the
copse after we had been to view the body.
Q. You were troubled about him, perhaps?
A. I was uneasy, until I had seen and questioned him.
Q. When was that?
A. He came in about five o’clock, and was immediately sent up to
me.
Q. You asked him, perhaps, to account for his absence?
A. I did.
Q. And what was his explanation?
A. He made a frank confession of his quarrel with Mr. Cleghorn,
described how his first intention on rushing from the house had really
been to find the girl and throw himself upon her mercy; but how,
once in the open air, his frenzy had begun to cool, and to yield itself
presently to indecision. He had then, he said, gone for a long walk
over the downs, fighting all the way the demon of rage and jealousy
which possessed him, and had finally, getting the better of his black
unreasoning mood, grown thoroughly repentant and ashamed of his
behaviour, and had returned to make amends.
Q. And you credited that wonderful story?
A. I believed it implicitly.
Q. Well, indeed, sir! Did he appear overcome by the news which
had greeted him on his return?
A. He appeared stupefied—that is the word.
Q. Did he comment on it at all?
A. If you mean in the self-incriminating sense, he did not.
Q. In what sense, then?
A. He cursed the assassin capable of destroying so sweet a
paragon of womanhood. (Laughter.)
Q. Very disinterested of him, I’m sure. Thank you, sir; that will
suffice.
 Counsel sitting down, Mr. Redstall, for Sir Calvin, rose to put a
question or two to the witness:—
Q. You have never had reason, M. le Baron, to regard the prisoner
as a vindictive man?
A. Never. Impulsive, yes.
Q. And truthful?
A. Transparently so—to a childish degree.
Q. He would have a difficulty in dissembling?
A. An insuperable difficulty, I should think.
Dr. Harding, of Longbridge, was the last witness called. He
deposed to his having been summoned to the house on the
afternoon of the murder, and to having examined the body within an
hour and a half of its first discovery in the copse. The cause of death
was a gunshot wound in the back, from a weapon fired at short
range. Practically the whole of the charge had entered the body in
one piece. Death must have been instantaneous, and must have
occurred, from the indications, some two hours before his arrival; or,
approximately, at about 3.30 o’clock. The wound could not possibly
have been self-inflicted, and the position of the gun precluded any
thought of accident. He had since, assisted by Dr. Liversidge of
Winton, made a post-mortem examination of the body. Asked if there
was anything significant in the deceased’s condition, his answer was
yes.
This completed the evidence, at the conclusion of which, and of
some remarks by the Coroner, the jury, after a brief consultation
among themselves, brought in a verdict that the deceased died from
a gunshot wound deliberately inflicted by the prisoner Louis Victor
Cabanis, in a fit of revengeful passion; which verdict amounting to
one of wilful murder, the prisoner was forthwith, on the Coroner’s
warrant, committed to the County gaol, there to await his
examination before the magistrates on the capital charge. The jury
further—being local men—added a rider to their verdict respectfully
commiserating Sir Calvin on the very unpleasant business which had
chosen to select his grounds for its enactment; and with that the
proceedings terminated.
 CHAPTER X.
AFTERWARDS

The inquest was over, the provisional verdict delivered, and all that
remained for the time being was to put the poor subject of it
straightway to rest under the leafless trees in Leighway churchyard.
It was done quietly and decently the morning after the inquiry, with
some of her fellow-servants attending, and Miss Kennett to represent
the family; and so was another blossom untimely fallen, and another
moral—a somewhat ghastly one now—furnished for the reproof of
the too hilarious Christian.
Audrey, coming back from the sad little ceremony, met Le Sage
walking by himself in the grounds. The Baron looked serious and,
she thought, dejected, and her young heart warmed to his grief. She
went up to him, and, putting her hands on his sleeve, “I am so sorry,”
she said, “so very, very sorry.”
He smiled at her kindly, then took her hand and drew it under his
arm.
“Let us walk a little way, and talk,” he said; and they strolled on
together. “Poor Louis!” he sighed.
“It is not true, is it, Baron?”
“I don’t think it is, my dear. But the difficulty is to prove that it isn’t.”
“How can it be done?”
“At the expense only, I am afraid, of finding the real criminal.”
“Have you any idea who that is?”
He laughed; actually laughed aloud.
“Have I not had enough of cross-examination?”
“I could not help wondering why, as I have been told, you
confessed to the warning you gave the poor girl.”
“About the danger of tempting hot blood, and so forth?”
“Yes, that.”
“It was the truth.”
“Yes, but——”
He put a finger to his lips, glancing at her with some solemnity.
 “You were not going to say that it is my way to repress the truth?”
“No,” answered the girl, with a little flush; “but only not to blurt it
out unnecessarily.”
“My dear,” he said, “take my word for it that I always speak the
truth.”
“O! I only meant to say——” she began; but he stopped her.
“What would you do if a question were put to you which, for some
reason of expediency, or good-feeling, you did not wish to answer?”
“I am afraid I should fib.”
“Try my plan, and answer it with another question. It saves a world
of responsibility. That is a secret I confide to you. An answer may
often be interpreted into an innuendo which is as false to the
speaker’s meaning as it is unjust to its subject. I love truth so much
that I would not expose it to that misunderstanding. In this instance,
to have left the truth for some one else to discover might have cast
suspicion on us both, thereby darkening the case against Louis. But,
in general, not to answer is surely not to lie?”
“No, I suppose not, Baron”—she thought a little—“I wonder if you
would answer me just one question?”
“What is that?”
“Do you put any faith in that talk about there having been another
man on the hill besides Cleghorn?”
He did not reply for awhile, but went softly patting the hand on his
arm. Presently he looked up.
“If I were to say yes, I should not speak the truth, and if I were to
say no, I should not speak the truth. So I follow my bent, and you will
not be offended with me. Are you going to take me for a drive to-day,
I ask?”
“Certainly, if you wish it.”
“What a question! I can answer that without a scruple. I wish it with
such fervour, seeing my companion, as my years may permit
themselves. Where shall we go?”
“You shall choose.”
“Very well. Then we will go north by the Downs, that we may take
the great free air into our lungs, and realise the more sympathetically
the condition of my poor Louis.”
 “O, don’t! It would kill me to be in prison. Baron, you are going to
stop with us, are you not, until the trial is over?”
“Both you and your father are very good. I may have, however, to
absent myself for a short time presently. We will see. In the
meanwhile I am your grateful Baron.” He took vast snuff, making his
eyes glisten, and somehow she liked him for it.
“I shall be glad,” she said, “when that detective goes. One will feel
more at peace from the squalor of it all.”
He shook his head.
“I do not think he means to go just yet.”
“Not? Why not?”
“Ah! that is his secret.”
“But what can he have to do now?”
“You must ask him, not me. All I can tell you is that he considers
his work here not yet finished; in fact, from words I heard him let fall
to your father this morning, little more than just begun.”
“How very strange! What can it mean?”
“Let us hazard a conjecture that he is not wholly satisfied with the
evidence against my Louis. It would be a happy thought for me.”
“O, yes, wouldn’t it! But—I wonder.”
“What do you wonder?”
“If the question of that other figure on the hill is puzzling him too.”
Le Sage laughed. “Well, we are permitted to wonder,” he said,
and, humming a little tune, changed the subject to one of
topography, and the situation of various places of interest in the
neighbourhood.
Audrey was perplexed about him. That he felt, and felt deeply, not
only the unhappy position of the prisoner, but the disturbance which
he himself had been the innocent means of introducing into the
house, she could not doubt; yet the patent genuineness of this
sentiment was unable, it seemed, wholly to deprive him of that
constitutional serenity, even gaiety, habitual to his nature. It was as if
he either could not, or would not, realise the black gravity of the
affair; as if, almost, holding the strings of it in his own hands, he
could afford to give this or that puppet a little tether before reining it
in to submit to his direction. And then she thought how this
impression was probably all due to that unanswering trick of his
which they had just been discussing, and which might very well
seem to inform his manner with a significance it did not really
possess or intend. She left him shortly, being called to some duty in
the house, and he continued his saunter alone, an aimless one
apparently, but gradually, after a time, assuming a definite direction.
It took him leisurely down the drive, out by the lodge gates into the
road as far as the fatal wicket, and so once more into the Bishop’s
Walk. Going unhurried along the track, he suddenly saw the
detective before him.
The Sergeant, bent over, it seemed, in an intent observation of the
ground, was fairly taken off his guard. He showed it, as he came
erect, in a momentary change of colour. But the little shock of
surprise was mastered as soon as felt: self-possession is not long or
easily yielded by one trained in self-resourcefulness.
“Were you wanting me, sir?” he said; “because, if not——”
“Because, if not,” took up the Baron, wagging his head cheerfully,
“what am I doing here, interrupting you at your business?”
“Well, sir, it’s you have said it, not I.”
“So your business is not yet over, Sergeant? Am I to borrow any
hope for my man from that?”
“Was it the question, sir, you were looking for me to answer?”
“Excellent! My own way of meeting an awkward inquiry.”
“What do you mean by awkward?”
“Why, you won’t answer me, of course. What sensible detective
would, and give away his case? Still, I am justified in assuming that
there is something in the business which, so far, does not satisfy
you; and I build on that.”
“O! you do, do you?” He rubbed his chin grittily, pulling down his
well-formed lower jaw, and stood for a moment or two speculatively
regarding the face before him. “I wonder now,” he said suddenly, “if
you would answer a question I might put to you?”
“I’ll see, my friend. Chance it.”
“What made you so interested in this business before even your
man was charged on suspicion?”
“You allude——?”
“I allude to my finding you already on the spot here when I came
down to make my own examination of it.”
 “Surely I have no reason to hide what I have already admitted in
public. I was uneasy about Louis.”
“And wanted to look and see, perhaps, if he’d left any evidences of
his guilt behind him?”
“I admit I was anxious to assure myself that there were no such
evidences.”
“And you did assure yourself?”
“Quite.”
“You found nothing suspicious?”
“Nothing whatever to connect with his presence here.”
“Found nothing at all?”
“Yes, I did: I found this.”
The Baron took from a pocket a common horn coat-button, and
handed it to the other, who received it and turned it over in silence.
“I picked it up,” said Le Sage, “near the tree where the gun had
stood.”
“Why,” said the detective, looking up rather blackly, “didn’t you
produce this at the Inquest?”
“I never supposed for the moment it could be of any importance.”
“H’mph!” grunted the Sergeant, and after a darkling moment, put
the button into his own pocket. “I don’t know; it may or may not be;
but you should have told me about it, sir. For the present, by your
leave, I’ll take charge of the thing. And now, if you’ve nothing more to
show me——”
“Nothing.”
“Then I should like to get on with my work, if it’s all the same to
you.”
“And I with my walk,” said the Baron, and he tripped jauntily away.
 CHAPTER XI.
THE BARON DRIVES

(From the Bickerdike MS.)

On the day following the Inquest, the plot thickened. It became really
entertaining. One did not know whether to appear the more
scandalised or amused. On the one hand there was a certain
satisfaction in knowing that the last word was apparently not said in
what had seemed to be a perfectly straightforward affair, on the other
one’s sense of fitness had received a severe blow. In short, the
impeccable Cleghorn had been arrested, and was detained on
suspicion. I saw him go off in a fly in charge of a couple of
policemen, and never did hooked cod-fish on the Dogger Bank look
more gogglingly stupefied than he over the amazing behaviour of the
bait he had swallowed. Sir Calvin stormed, and blasphemed, and
demanded to know if the whole household of Wildshott was in a
conspiracy to shame him and tarnish his escutcheon; but his
objurgations were received very civilly and sensibly by the detective,
who explained that he must act according to his professional
conscience, that detention did not necessarily mean conviction, or
even indictment, and that where a sifting of the truth from the chaff
imposed precautionary measures, he must be free to take them, or
abandon his conduct of the case. Whereon the wrathful General
simmered down, and contented himself only with requesting
sarcastically a few hours’ grace to settle his affairs, when it came to
be his turn to wear the official bracelets.
And so, for the while, we were without a butler; nor could one, on
reviewing the evidence, be altogether surprised, perhaps, over that
deprivation. Certainly Cleghorn’s account of his own movements
could not be considered wholly satisfying or convincing, and he had
admitted his lack of any witness to substantiate it. It seemed
incredible, with a man of his substance and dignity; but is not the
history of crime full of such apparent contradictions? After all, he had
had the same provocation as the other man, and had departed,
apparently, the same way to answer it; and, as to his moral condition
after the event, all testimony went to prove that it was worse than
that of the Gascon. Anyhow, this new development, however it was
destined to turn out, added fifty per cent. to the excitement of the
business. Cleghorn! It seemed inexpressibly comic.
As day followed day succeeding this terrific event, however
progressively other things might be assumed to be moving, no
ground was made in the matter of tracing out the dead girl’s origin or
connexions—and that in spite of the publicity given to the affair. It
was very strange, and I was immensely curious to know what could
be the reason. Her portrait was published in the Police Gazette, and
exhibited outside the various stations, but without result. I saw a
copy of it, and did not wonder. It had been reproduced, enlarged, it
seemed, from a tiny snapshot group, taken by one of the grooms, in
which she had figured quite inconspicuously, and was like nothing
human. I spoke to Ridgway about it, and he said it was the best that
could be done, that no other photograph of her could be traced,
though all the photographers in London had been applied to, and he
owned frankly that there seemed some mystery about the girl. I quite
agreed with him, and hinted that it was not the only one that
remained to be cleared up. He did not ask me what I meant, but I
saw, by his next remark, that he had understood what was in my
mind.
“Why don’t you persuade him, sir,” he said, “to throw this business
off his chest, and get back to his old interests? He takes it too much
to heart.”
It was to Hugo he referred, of course, and I did not pretend to
misapprehend him. To tell the truth, I was a little smarting from my
friend’s treatment of me, and not in the mood to be indulgent of his
idiosyncrasies. I might have my suspicions as to his involvement in a
discreditable affair, but I had certainly not made him a party to them,
or even touched upon the subject of the scandal to him save with the
utmost delicacy and consideration. If he had chosen to give me his
confidence then and there, I would have honoured it; as it was, since
he showed no disposition to keep his promise to me made on the
day of the shoot, I considered myself as much at liberty to canvass
the subject as any one else who had heard, and formed his own
conclusions, from the doctor’s evidence. It was true that, to me at
least, Hugh was doing his best to give his case away by his
behaviour. He seemed to make little attempt to rally from the gloom
with which the tragedy had overcast him, but mooned about, silent,
and aimless, as if for the moment he had lost all interest in life. It was
only that morning that, moved by his condition, I had come at last to
the resolution to remind him of his promise, and get him to share
with me, if he would, the burden that was crushing his soul. His
answer showed me at once, however, the vanity of my good
intentions. “Thanks, old fellow,” he had said; “but a good deal has
happened since then, and I’ve nothing to confide.”
Now, that might be true, in the sense that the danger was past,
and I could have forgiven his reticence on the score of the loyalty it
might imply to a reputation passed beyond its own defence; but he
went on with some offensive remark about his regret in not being
able to satisfy my curiosity, and ended with a suggestion which,
however well-meaning it might have been, I considered positively
insulting.
“You are wasting yourself here, old boy,” he said. “I’m not, truth to
tell, in the mood for much, and we oughtn’t to keep you. I feel that I
got you here under false pretences; but I couldn’t know what was
going to happen, could I? and so I won’t apologise. I think, I really
think, that, for the sake of all our feelings, it would be better if you
terminated your visit. You don’t mind my saying so, do you?”
“On the contrary, I mind very much,” I answered. “Have you
forgotten how, at considerable inconvenience to myself, I responded
at once to your invitation, and came down at a moment’s notice? The
reason, as you ought to know, Hugh, was pure regard for yourself
and a desire to help, and that desire is not lessened because I find
you involved in a much more serious business than I had
anticipated.”
“O, if you put it in that way”—he began.
“I do put it in that way,” I said, “and I don’t take it very friendly of
you that you should talk of denying me a privilege which you were
ready enough to grant to that precious new Baron of yours—even
pressing him to stay.”
“It was not I who asked him,” he murmured.
 “No,” I insisted, “I came to be helpful, and I am going to remain to
be helpful. I don’t leave you till I have seen this thing through.”
“Well,” he said very equivocally, “I hope that will be soon”—and he
left me to myself to brood over his ingratitude. I was sore with him, I
confess, and my grievance made me more unguarded perhaps in my
references to him than otherwise I should have been.
“I dare say he does,” I answered the detective; “but after all, I
suppose, it is his heart that is affected.”
He looked at me keenly.
“You mean, sir?”
“O! what you mean,” I answered, “and that I can see that you
mean. What’s the good of our beating about the bush? My friend
wouldn’t be the first young fellow of his class to have got into trouble
with a good-looking servant girl.”
“No,” he said, “no,” in a hard sort of way. “They are not the kind to
bother about the consequences to others where their own
gratification is concerned. I’ve knocked up against some pretty bad
cases in my time. So, that’s what you gather from the medical
report?”
“Partly from that; not wholly.”
“Ah! I dare say now, being on such friendly terms with Mr. Kennett,
you’ve been taken into his confidence?”
“Not directly; but in a way that invited me to form my own
conclusions. What then? It doesn’t affect this case, does it, except in
suggesting a possible motive for the crime on the part of some
jealous rival?”
“That’s it. It’s of no consequence, of course—except to the girl
herself—from any other point of view.”
His assurance satisfied me, and, taken by his sympathetic
candour, I could not refrain from opening my rankling mind to him a
bit.
“The truth is,” I said, “that the moment I came down, I saw there
was something wrong with my friend. Indeed, he had written to me to
imply as much.”
“He was upset like, was he?” commented the detective.
“He was in a very odd mood,” said I—“an aggravated form of
hysteria, I should call it. I had never known him quite like it before,
though, as I dare say you have gathered, his temperament is an
excitable one, up and down like a see-saw. He talked of his
dreaming of sitting on a gunpowder barrel smoking a cigarette, and
of the hell of an explosion that was coming. And then there was his
behaviour at the shoot the next day.”
“I’ve heard something about it,” said Ridgway. “Queer, wasn’t it?”
“More than queer,” I answered. “I don’t mind telling you in
confidence that I had reason at one time to suspect him of playing
the fool with his gun, with the half intention—you know—an accident,
and all the bother ended. He swore not, when I tackled him about it;
but I wasn’t satisfied. I tried to get him to go home, leaving his gun
with the keeper, but he absolutely refused; and he refused again to
part with it when, in the afternoon, he finally did leave us, saying he
was good for nothing, and had had enough of it. If only then he had
done what I wanted him to do, and left his gun behind, this wretched
business might never have happened.”
“Ah!” said the detective, “he feels that, I dare say, and it doesn’t
help to cheer him up. Well, sir, I’d get him out, if I was you—distract
his thoughts, and make him forget himself. He won’t mend what’s
done by moping.”
“All very well,” I answered, “to talk about making him forget
himself; but when I’m forced to affect an ignorance of the very thing
he wants to forget—if we’re right—what am I to do? You might think
that after having had me down for the express purpose of advising
him—as I have no doubt was the case—in this scrape, he would
take me more into his confidence, and not at least resent, as
seemingly he does, any allusion to it.”
“Well, you see,” said the detective, “from his point of view the
scrape’s ended for him, and so there isn’t the same need for advice.
But I’d keep at it, if I was you, and after a time you may get him to
unburden himself.”
I had not much hope, after what had passed between us; but I
held the Sergeant’s recommendation in mind, and resolved to watch
for and encourage the least disposition to candour which might show
itself on my friend’s part. Perhaps I had gone a little further than I
should have in taking the detective into my confidence about a
scandal which, after all, was no more than surmise; but it was so
patent to me that his judgment ran, and must run, with my own, that
it would have been simply idle to pretend ignorance of a situation
about which no two men of intelligence could possibly have come to
differing conclusions. And, moreover, as Ridgway himself had
admitted, true or not, the incident had no direct bearing on the case.
These days at Wildshott, otherwise a little eventless for me as an
outsider, found a certain mitigation of their dullness in the suspicion
still kept alive in me regarding the Baron’s movements, and in the
consequent watchfulness I felt it my duty to keep on them. I don’t
know how it was, but I mistrusted the man, his secretiveness, the
company he kept, the mystery surrounding his being. Who was he?
Why did he play chess for half-crowns? Why had he come attended
—as, according to evidence, never before—by a ruffianly foreign
man-servant, ready, on the most trifling provocation, to dip his hands
in blood? That had been outside the programme, no doubt: men who
use dangerous tools must risk their turning in their hands; but what
had been his purpose in bringing the fellow? Throat-cutting?
Robbery?—I was prepared for any revelation. Abduction, perhaps:
the Baron was for ever driving about the country with Audrey in the
little governess cart. In the meanwhile, following that miscarriage of
his master’s plans, whatever they might be, Mr. Louis Victor Cabanis
had been had up before a full bench of magistrates, and, the police
asking for time in which to compact their evidence, had been
remanded to prison for a fortnight. The delay gave some breathing
space for all concerned, and was, I think, welcomed by every one
but Hugo. I don’t know by what passion of hatred of the slayer my
friend’s soul might have been agitated. Perhaps it was that, perhaps
mere nervous tension; but he appeared to be in a feverish
impatience to get the business over. He did not say much about it;
but one could judge by his look and manner the strained torment of
his spirit. We were not a great deal together; and mostly I had to
make out my time alone as best I could. Sometimes, in a rather
pathetic way, he would go and play chess with his father, a thing he
had never dreamed of doing in his normal state. I used to wonder if
the General had guessed the truth, and how he was regarding it if he
had. According to all accounts, he had been no Puritan himself in his
younger days.
 I have said that Audrey and the Baron were about a good deal
together. They were, and the knowledge troubled me so much that I
made up my mind to warn her.
“You appear to find his company very entertaining,” I said to her
one day. Audrey had a rather disconcerting way of responding to any
unwelcome question with a wide-eyed stare, which it was difficult to
undergo quite stoically.
“Do I?” she said presently. “Why?”
“You would hardly favour it so much otherwise, would you?”
“Perhaps not. You see I take the best there is. I can’t help it if the
choice is so limited.”
“That’s one for me. But never mind. I’m content he should do the
entertaining, if I can do the helpful.”
“To me, Mr. Bickerdike?”
“I hope so—a little. As Hugo’s friend I feel that I ought to have
some claim on your forbearance, not to say your good will. I think at
least that, on the strength of that friendship, you need not resent my
giving you a word of advice on a subject where, in my opinion, it’s
wanted.”
“I have a father and brother to look after me, Mr. Bickerdike.”
“I’m aware of it, Audrey; and also of the fact that—for reasons
sufficient of their own, no doubt—they leave you pretty much as you
like to go your own way. It may be an unexceptionable way for the
most part; but the wisest of us may occasionally go wrong from
ignorance, and then it is the duty—I dare say the thankless duty—of
friendship to interpose. You are very young, you know, and, one
can’t help seeing, rather forlornly situated——”
“Will you please to leave my situation alone, and explain what this
is all about?”
“Frankly, then—I offer this in confidence—I don’t think the Baron
very good company for you.”
“Why not?”
“It’s a little difficult to say. If you had more knowledge of the world
you would understand, perhaps. There’s an air about him of the
shady Continental adventurer, whose purpose in society, wherever
he may seek it, is never a disinterested purpose. He’s always, one
may be sure, after something profitable to himself—in one word,
spoil. What do we any of us know about the Baron, except that he
plays chess for money and consorts with doubtful characters? Your
father knows, I believe, little more than I do, and that little for me is
summed up in the word ‘suspect.’ One can’t say what can be his
object in staying on here when common decency, one would have
thought, seeing the trouble he has been instrumental in causing,
should have dictated his departure; but, whatever his object, it is not
likely, one feels convinced, to be a harmless one, and one cannot
help fearing that he may be practising on your young credulity with a
view to furthering it in some way. I wish you would tell me—will you?
—what he talks to you about.”
She laughed in a way which somehow nettled me. “Doesn’t it
strike you,” she said, “as rather cheek on the part of one guest in a
house to criticize the behaviour of another to his hostess?”
“O, if you take it in that way,” I answered, greatly affronted, “I’ve
nothing more to say. Your power of reading character is no doubt
immensely superior to mine.”
“Well, I don’t think yours is very good,” she answered; “and I don’t
see why the question of common decency should apply to him more
than to another.”
“Don’t you?” I said, now fairly in a rage: “then it’s useless to
prolong the discussion further. This is the usual reward of trying to
interpose for good in other people’s affairs.”
“Some people might call it prying into them,” she answered, and I
flung from her without another word. I felt that I really hated the girl—
intolerable, pert, audacious young minx; but my rebuff made me
more determined than ever to sift the truth out of this questionable
riddle, and face her insolent assurance with it at the proper time.