CPX Foxtrot

Command Post Exercise Foxtrot (CPX Foxtrot)
Discussion of the Hypothetical Use of an OpFor False Flag Attack as a FreeFor Line of Departure
Action Date: 9:00 PM EST on Friday, 24 Feb 2012
Execution Date: (Hypothetical)



Given the current escalating tensions with Iran, and the known history of enemies of liberty in escalating and prompting crises to the detriment of the American people, the possibility of a large-scale or widespread false-flag attack on Americans has become a subject of conversation in FreeFor. A growing theme among liberty oriented persons is as follows: Given that such a false-flag attack would represent a crime of unprecedented magnitude, perpetrated upon thousands of innocent people (perhaps millions if executed with a nuclear weapon of whatever scale), the various diverse and often opposing elements of FreeFor could agree that preventing such an event would be of the utmost importance. The conclusion, well-founded or not, of some informal discussions appears to be the use of such a false-flag event as a common trigger for further action.

The objective of this CPX, then, is to provide a context in which to discuss this approach to assist in disrupting any such false-flag attack which may already be in the planning stages, while simultaneously exercising the capability of the FreeFor to act in concert to execute a multi-phase distributed operation at varying levels of private and public visibility, and across boundaries of interest. In this CPX, the discussion of the merits of the use of such a false-flag attack as a hypothetical FreeFor line of departure for local action plans, without discussing those hypothetical action plans themselves, may accomplish these objectives in a nonviolent way which is non-actionable given the current legal environment.


1. To explore the possibility, credibility and implications of a false-flag threat, including means by which an inadvertent self-sustaining chain reaction of hair-trigger events might be avoided in non-false-flag circumstances.

2. To act as a confidence-building exercise among all elements of FreeFor across areas of interest, including those remaining within the governmental establishment at all levels, by selecting objectives and implementation goals of the widest possible appeal and which pose the minimum element of risk to the FreeFor participants.

3. To assist the remaining elements of FreeFor within the governmental establishment at all levels to disrupt/expose a possible false-flag attack on Americans by causing the hostile (or rogue) planners to reorient to the implications of this CPX, thus causing increased internal chatter subject to traffic analysis or leakage, which, in turn, increases the risk of the false-flag operation to exposure and blowback if executed.

4. To preserve elements of FreeFor from prosecution by limiting discussion to non-actionable hypothetical discussions of the implications of this CPX.

5. To minimize the interpersonal conflict that often mars FreeFor exercises by using multiple veils of anonymity and a deliberate lack of central control or direction.

6. To demonstrate the capability of FreeFor for communications discipline by two communication phases, one prior to the action date, one after.

7. To preserve the anonymity of covert FreeFor participants by masking their activities and greater number within a larger volume of overt participation.

8. To thwart the desires and actions of OpFor hostiles to use the CPX for its own purposes.

9. To use the assets, desires and actions of OpFor hostiles to discover elements of their influence on and penetration of FreeFor.

10. To develop a model of FreeFor exercises which communicate information in a self-disciplined and self-propagating way using various media.


Action Date: The date and time that a planned action is to be implemented. In particular, the action date of this CPX signals the transition of communications about this CPX from private to public means. See also Execution Date.

Covert Participants: FreeFor persons or elements which, for reasons of their own, wish to maintain anonymity.

Execution Date: The date and time at which an important event is to be executed. For the purposes of this CPX, the execution date is purely hypothetical. Within that hypothetical context, the execution date would be the date at which OpFor implements a false-flag attack, or such a false-flag attack is identified as such within a reasonable certainty.

FreeFor: Freedom Forces, which includes any person or group of persons, within or without government, interested in establishing, maintaining, or restoring the rightful place of government as the servant of natural persons along principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, or other works which promote individual responsibility, liberty and freedom from coercive government, even if not those specific wordings.

Go Code: A pre-arranged signal or event which initiates action.

Hotline: An emergency communication path, whether secured or not, which remains covert prior to use, but which, once used, is likely to be suspect afterward.

Line of Departure: A pre-arranged location or set of circumstances from which operations transition from the preparation phase to the execution phase. Starting execution of a plan is known as “crossing the line of departure”.

OpFor: Opposition Forces, typically those hostile elements in domestic or foreign governmental positions opposed to the objectives of FreeFor.

Overt Participants: FreeFor persons or elements which are already well-known to the governmental establishment, and who are taking on little additional risk by participating in this CPX during both the private and public phases.

Private Communication: Any and all exchanges of this CPX and discussions about it which remain limited to peer-to-peer or peer-to-peers (blast) email, voice and personal conversations. Specifically excluded from private communication as defined here are postings on the Internet, blogs, social networking sites, etc.

Public Communication: Any and all exchanges of this CPX and discussions about it using an unrestricted variety of communication media and channels, including, but not limited to, blogs, posted articles, advertisements, flyers, posters, etc.

Specific Actions Requested of Participants

1. Participate in widely disseminating the text of this CPX using communication channels and networks normal and customary to a given participant during the private communication phase as defined below.

2. Participate in widely disseminating the text of this CPX using communication channels and networks normal and customary to a given participant during the public communication phase as defined below.

3. Monitor, to the extent of the individual participant’s capability, the emergence of the following, which may indicate potentially disruptive attempts by OpFor elements:

a. Any premature public dissemination of the text of this CPX prior to the action date, as defined below.
b. Any attempt by participants to generate interpersonal hostility or to act as provocateurs to goad creation, revelation or implementation of line of departure plans.
c. Any attempt by participants to transmit or encourage the transmission of the text of this CPX through hotline or other secure channels.



1. That hostile elements within the governmental establishment, through various means of data collection and analysis, already have complete knowledge of this CPX. Accordingly, this CPX is structured in such a way that existing hostile knowledge is not only not harmful, but beneficial to the objectives of the CPX.

2. That these hostile elements desire to act in ways which will disrupt or discredit this CPX, including, but not limited to, provocateurs, misinformation, early triggering and initiation of interpersonal conflict.

3. That these hostile elements will seek to apply traffic analysis to the execution phases of this CPX to both discover previously unknown FreeFor linkages, or discover previously unknown covert participants or confirm suspected covert participants.

4. That FreeFor elements answer to no one, but instead apply their own judgment and discretion in taking or not taking any action. Accordingly, portions of this CPX written in the form of orders are merely suggested as recommendations for unified action.

Operational Principles

I. Phases

1. This CPX is divided into three phases:

a. A private communication phase prior to the action date and time.
b. A public communication phase after the action date and time.
c. A hypothetical execution phase which would commence after the implementation of a false-flag attack by OpFor upon Americans.

2. Although this CPX is assumed to be completely known to hostile forces from inception, division of the CPX into two communication phases allows FreeFor to demonstrate an understanding of communication discipline principles. This two-phase approach also provides multiple opportunities for hostiles to expose themselves through the initiation of early triggering in the private phase, or other disruptive activities in either phase, and in ways which can be detected and noted by FreeFor participants, overt and covert, through passive means and without centralized coordination.

3. The execution phase is purely hypothetical, and discussion of this phase by participants within the context of this CPX is restricted as detailed below for the protection of all FreeFor participants.

II. Private Communication Actions Prior to the Action Date.

1. During the private communication phase, overt participants are encouraged to communicate as widely as possible with other participants, overt or covert, about the content and implications of this CPX using only private communications. To deny hostiles additional information beyond that which they possess prior to this CPX, and for the protection of covert participants, these communications are to use only those linkages which are normal and customary for the participant. Hotline resources are to be specifically prohibited for this CPX in both phases.

2. The private communication phase is to be limited to communication means which lack permanence beyond the control of the individual participants, hostile recording, interception and storage excluded. Email, texting, handwritten notes, phone and personal conversations are examples of private communications. Blogging, tweeting, discussion with media, or posting of the CPX on social media sites, which have a public and stored nature, are specifically excluded during the private communication phase.

3. The sole exception to the use of public communications prior to the action date are teaser mentions of the CPX on public media, and then only by the single and complete phrase “CPX Foxtrot”, with no other detail about the CPX content or intentions provided. Those persons inquiring about these mentions of “CPX Foxtrot” should be provided its content during the private communication phase if those persons are within the normal and customary sphere of influence for a given participant.

An example of a public mention during the private communication phase is a blogger or commenter posting text similar to the following:

“And be sure to participate in CPX Foxtrot.”
“Remember, CPX Foxtrot is coming up.”
“Are you ready for CPX Foxtrot? I am.”

If a prospective participant then asks about details for the CPX, other participants should provide the prospect with the CPX using private communications if that prospect is within the normal and customary reach of the provider. If not, then an appropriate response would be:

“Thanks for asking about that. Ask someone you know about CPX Foxtrot. If they don’t know, ask them to ask. When you get CPX Foxtrot, you will know why it has to be this way.”

Examples of providing the text of this CPX to others within the normal or customary scope of FreeFor communications include:

“A friend sent this to me. It is an interesting concept that probably should be discussed further.”
“I am concerned that this idea might have unintended negative consequences. Worth a read.”

4. The lack of public storage of the CPX Foxtrot details during the private communication phase will assist in not only generating additional teaser interest in the CPX, but will also make it easier for specific covert FreeFor assets to identify potential hostile infiltrants during the private communication phase. If in doubt, don’t post. Also, do not assist hostile traffic analysis by providing details of the CPX beyond those prospective participants with which you normally and customarily communicate. Avoid being ensnared by hostile fishing expeditions.

5. Prospective participants are to be treated with respect and encouraged. An “us-versus-them”, or “clique” mentality is to be avoided at all times by all FreeFor participants. FreeFor participants are also encouraged to apply their own traffic analyses to identify potential hostile provocateurs attempting to disrupt the CPX through the incitement of interpersonal discord or discouragement of prospects.

6. During the private communication phase, the text of this CPX is to be distributed as text attachments (word-wrap off) where practical, or as inserted or printed text otherwise. Other file formats, such as PDFs or DOCs, contain tagging information which reveals personal information or transmits viruses.

7. Within these restrictions, then, during this phase the CPX should be distributed as widely as possible, encouraging the recipients to in turn widely distribute, in chain letter fashion, to ensure as large a participation as possible on the action date.

III. Public Communication Actions On or After the Action Date

1. All participants are encouraged to publicly post the CPX content simultaneously on the action date and time in as many media, blogs, etc. as possible. Original postings with the CPX content, or with the CPX text content attached where possible, are more desirable rather than chain-linking back to a single source blog.

2. During the public communication phase, exposure of the CPX content is encouraged on all communication forms without restriction, other than the hotlines as discussed previously, which are not to be used for the purposes of this CPX at any time. An intention is to create as wide a historical Internet footprint as possible, as well as expose means and personnel by which hostiles attempt to minimize this footprint over time.

3. During the public communication phase, this CPX can be distributed in any form or file format.

IV. Principles During Either Communication Phase

1. A critical component of this CPX is ongoing discussion by participants of the implications of this CPX during either communication phase. However, for the protection of the FreeFor participants, discussion of the execution phase is to be limited to hypothetical discussions of the political/other implications should FreeFor use an OpFor false-flag attack as a line of departure for other covert plans which may or may not be under development. Specifically prohibited as part of this CPX is the initiation, discussion or exploration of such plans. All participants should be alert for potential hostiles who may try to use this CPX to discover or incite specific planning for line of departure actions within the context of this CPX.

Examples of acceptable discussions within the context of this CPX include:

“Is OpFor planning a false-flag, and if so, would the possibility of that as a line of departure for FreeFor be likely to disrupt those plans?”
“How might OpFor use crossing of the line of departure to its own ends, and how might that be mitigated?”
“How might inadvertent triggering of the execution phase be avoided for legitimate emergencies?”
“What effect does the existence of CPX Foxtrot have on the police? On the military?”
“How might FreeFor identify a false-flag so that it can be used as a valid go-code? Would the rapid availability of “perfect knowledge” be a tipoff?”
“Does even the discussion of this CPX have a disruptive effect on OpFor?”
“What other CPXs might we develop to continue to disrupt OpFor?”
“What benefits does FreeFor derive from exercises like CPX Foxtrot and how can we amplify that effect?”
“Outside a false-flag attack by OpFor, what other signals might FreeFor pay attention to?”
“How can FreeFor overt participants use OpFor infiltration and disruption policies and procedures to assist hostiles in exposing themselves to covert FreeFor participants?”
“How can FreeFor use traffic analysis and other techniques to hamstring the actions of OpFor by making them depart from establish procedures and thus resort to error-prone improvised operations?”

Examples of unacceptable discussions within the context of this CPX include:

“What are you planning to do when crossing the line of departure?”
“What should I do when crossing the line of departure?”
“I know a guy/place where you can get X, Y, or Z illegal things to help implement this plan.”
“Who do you know who might cross the line of departure?”

There is a certain amount of subjectivity as to the dividing line between acceptable discussions within the context of this CPX, and discussions which are specifically outside the context of this CPX. It is expected that OpFor will use provocateurs to attempt to goad participants into unacceptable discussions. CPX participants who stray beyond this imaginary line should be gently and respectfully encouraged to review the CPX. FreeFor participants who have been so admonished should exercise diligence in withdrawing to a suitable degree to illustrate their intentions, again, with due respect to all participants. In this way, we create an environment in which hostile provocateurs have ample opportunity to expose themselves, by violating either side of respectful admonishment.

Remember at all times, the discussion of the implications and practicality of a line of departure crossing in response to a false-flag is the topic of this CPX, not those line of departure plans themselves.

2. Participants are encouraged to remember that the rules of interpersonal conduct are merely for the purposes of this CPX, and that normal interpersonal squabbles are to continue unabated outside of this CPX.

3. Within the CPX itself, all participants should be alert to potential hostiles who insist on remaining outside its rules. Detection of potential hostiles who have infiltrated FreeFor is a key objective of this CPX as it uses OpFor’s existing policies and personnel limitations to the benefit of FreeFor.

V. Ongoing Actions

1. Participants in CPX Foxtrot are encouraged to continue to promulgate this CPX and its discussions on an ongoing basis. There is no termination date.

2. Participants in CPX Foxtrot are encouraged to use the term “CPX Foxtrot” as a signal at any time in the future to crack through interpersonal squabbles when discussing the premise of this CPX, which is the hypothetical crossing of the FreeFor line of departure in response to a false-flag attack upon Americans by OpFor.

3. Participants in CPX Foxtrot are encouraged to use this template to generate their own CPXs in the future. An objective of this CPX is to improve upon the techniques employed here to inculcate and evolve, over time, a credible counterforce to unrestricted hostile action upon FreeFor.

Hypothetical Frequently Asked Questions About CPX Foxtrot

Q1. Why should this CPX be transmitted in text form?
A1. Simple text form is immune to transmission of viruses and other detrimental side-effects. In addition, simple text lacks any potential identifying information.

Q2. Why should this CPX not be transmitted using secure or hotline channels?
A2. Two reasons. First, to deny OpFor knowledge of the existence, nature or scope of such channels. Second, a common means to break encryption is to encourage the transmission of a known plaintext through a given secure channel, followed by comparison to the resulting ciphertext.

Q3. Why is the CPX divided into private and public communication phases?
A3. Several reasons. First, as a confidence builder and to generate a sense of esprit de corps among the participants. Second, to force OpFor to remain dormant during the private communication phase, or else risk exposing some of their covert assets. This alone requires that OpFor react to FreeFor initiative, causing elements of OpFor to recognize their lack of omnipotence which plants the seeds in their minds of the potential consequences of failure of false-flag missions. Finally, to assist in generating interest in this CPX by teaser mentions of “CPX Foxtrot” during the private communication phase without the text being publicly available until later in the private communication phase.

Q4. Why is it acceptable, or even desirable, to publicly mention “CPX Foxtrot” during the private communication phase?
A4. As mentioned above, to generate interest by teaser mentions.

Q5. Why is interpersonal conflict to be carefully monitored in the context of this CPX?
A5. A common OpFor disruptive tactic is to generate interpersonal conflict. However, to avoid exposing their assets, all participants, including OpFor elements, must maintain decorum, which once again forces OpFor to play by FreeFor rules.

Q6. Why was the false flag selected as the topic of this CPX?
A6. This topic was selected because of the timely current interest in potential false flag operations given the growing tensions with Iran.

Q7. Won’t I be exposing my network of contacts by sending this CPX?
A7. OpFor has likely already mapped the normal network of contacts by each potential CPX participant. This CPX specifically requests participants to only send this CPX to those already in that participant’s normal and customary FreeFor discussion paths, thus denying OpFor information about potential “emergency” communication paths.

Q8. Could this CPX be labeled as an anti-government conspiracy?
A8. Given the lack of attention to law, justice and ethics by elements of the government today, anything could be considered illegal. However, as long as the First Amendment is presumed to have any relevance, this CPX merely encourages participants to discuss the implications of a FreeFor crossing of the line of departure in response to a false flag, rather than encouraging participants to actually perform such actions. In fact, participants are specifically requested to forego the latter discussions in the context of this CPX as a means of detecting potential OpFor provocateurs.

Q9. Isn’t this CPX equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater? Could it not trigger crazies in response to any perceived false flag?
A9. This CPX doesn’t introduce the concept of crossing the line of departure in response to a false flag, it merely encourages the discussion of this concept, which already exists in the public space. One of the objectives of this CPX is to discuss potential unintended consequences of such a policy, and this is beneficial to reducing the possibility of such undesirable triggers. Stated differently, discussing the implications of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not the same thing as actually yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, nor is it encouraging anyone to do so.

Q10. During the private communication phase, is it acceptable to store this text on my website, and then link to that text in private emails?
A10. No. Storing this text on a web server makes it subject to being swept up by a search engine spider, and then appearing in search results. This would violate the intention of the private communication phase, which is to prevent search engines from reporting the full text of the CPX during this phase. Once the public communication phase begins, then this form of storage is an acceptable option.

Q11. If OpFor already has knowledge of this CPX and potential participants, what is to be gained by the private communication phase?
A11. As mentioned previously, to demonstrate, both to FreeFor and to OpFor, the capability to perform a decentralized operation as well as to provide an opportunity for interested covert elements of FreeFor to participate in uncovering OpFor moles.

Q12. If OpFor already has knowledge of the authors of this CPX, why keep their identities concealed?
A12. To minimize the negative effect of personality conflicts within FreeFor which might interfere with the success of this CPX.

Q13. Isn’t the use of “OpFor” creating deliberate conflict with the government?
A13. This CPX is not anti-government. This CPX is, however, intended to disrupt the actions of intra-governmental or extra-governemental actors who exceed, or who might conspire to exceed, their lawful authority, while supporting those remaining elements of FreeFor within government who perform their duties within lawful bounds.

Q14. What if this CPX itself is a probing attempt by OpFor?
A14. As mentioned previously, it is presumed that OpFor already has knowledge of FreeFor participants, particularly those who are active on the Internet. However, no prospective participant should feel, or be made to feel, any obligation to participate. Instead, such passive, or covert, participants also serve a role by assisting in watching the progress and actions of other particpants and forming their own conclusions.

Q15. This CPX has some errors and portions could be written better. Should I improve it?
A15. No. One of the roles of some covert FreeFor participants is to detect at which nodes the CPX has been altered. If a participant chooses to pass the CPX text along, it should be done with no modifications. If it must be pasted into email, please paste from the first character through to the last, with no intervening comments inserted.

50 responses to “CPX Foxtrot

  1. The author seriously needs an editor. I’m not going to sit here and read through all this. Get out the red pencil and chop this down to three paragraphs.

  2. David doesn’t get it.

  3. Hello,

    I wish to let you know that I am a blogger as well and have just added you to my blogroll,,

    I came to know of you through a good friend and coworker and USAF Veteran and also an avid supporter (as am I) of the 2nd Amendment.

    Please understand that I mean to promote your book starting today!.

  4. Bill Fletcher

    you people need a clue,nobody in the real world reads blogs you fucking geeks/A country of walter mittys

  5. Bill are you actually a person or just a troll?

    • Will the real Bill please stand up?

      IMO it may or may not be some sort of smear – that’s the same name the norcal patcom organizer uses. Odd, that.

  6. ForceResponse

    Wow. WRSA just fell off my blogroll. So how long did it take Kerodin to write this anyway? Never seen such a display of self-importance. I’m going for a run. You guys let me know when you’re done playing D&D.

  7. The naysayers have a point. This could be the equivalent of playing Dungeons and Dragons, meaning weeks could be wasted pissing away over this as fantasies run wild.
    A trigger event: a false flag, or the New Madrid shaking loose, or a new brace of hurricanes are just the balloons going up, the whistle or the starter’s pistol. Of course they’re going to try and spin it and use it to their advantage. So are you.
    Is there a damn thing you can do to stop them? Stop all the false flags they have set to cascade? How about concentrating on what you’ll do. Keep it recon altitude at first and then drill down onto the points that have the greatest probability of happening.
    Concentrate your efforts where you can have the greatest effect and quit sweating the small stuff. Arguing over whether or not they’ll be driving Ford or Chevy trucks out of their fusion center or other minutia is a waste of time. It’s going to be a different experience and different sets of obstacles from AO to AO anyways.

  8. The reason Kerodin made this text so long was to trip triggers in the searchbotsl It does look long and windy but it was written for robots not so much for people,

  9. Bill Fletcher

    I guess in ur world I have to have a macho military name to be real.Or not say who and where I am.fucking clowns

  10. Bill Fletcher

    What is up with that trinket salesman? why is he in such a hurry to have US commit suicide?Will he go 1st after the trinkets are gone?

  11. CPX Foxtrot

  12. Ok, last night I thought this was cool, but looking at it after a night’s sleep, I would expect that it will show up on exactly the same blogs everyone already knows about, maybe a handful of other places, and that’s it. Nowhere else. No widespread burst of discussion across the net. Such things can’t be forced or aimed for, they are an outgrowth of pre-existing tendencies and interests, which simply don’t exist in the broader population right now for reasons extensively discussed already.

    Another thought: how exactly did the people who posted this pick themselves? [semi-rhetorical question – again, it’s the same blogs everyone can think of, with the perhaps unsurprising exception of Vanderboegh] What point was there in doing so? Inner circles are bad. Clubs that define themselves around who’s not allowed in the clubhouse are bad. What does it prove to “build trust” on the net? In an insurrection / breakdown of order scenario, the net is irrelevant, what matters is the people in the houses near yours who can be relied on to watch for marauders, or the guy in the town half an hour down the road who can help you out if you really need it. This doesn’t do a thing towards building that, or giving people the tools to do so.

    The obsession over provocateurs just seems pointless to me. Sure there are law enforcement agents out there trying to goad people into doing silly things. Don’t do silly things, and/or do them of a nature and on a scale and in a context that the consequences are acceptable and allow you to continue afterwards. If you want to declare war on the government, have people backing you up, that you know will back you up, that you know WHY they will back you up, or else don’t bother.

    I guess I approve of the sentiment behind this, but I don’t see that it will actually accomplish anything worth the time.

    • CPX Foxtrot had little to do with false flags. That was just a vehicle, IMO.

    • [semi-rhetorical question – again, it’s the same blogs everyone can think of, with the perhaps unsurprising exception of Vanderboegh]

      Mike’s sick and not posting this weekend. His wife was nice enough to log in and let us know he’s down for a bit.

  13. Bill Fletcher

    I keep getting echos form cheny and bush and ginrich about what a damn fine thing VietNam was.

    • Semper Fi, 0321

      Keep playing the part of the illiterate hick, it’s working for you.

      So where do you really live, VA. maybe?

  14. Folks: Perhaps I should let this evolve a bit more, but there is enough here to make my points.

    1) It is an exercise. Read through it and try to digest the nuances. Most action will NOT be lurking through back alleys with your sooper-dooper urban sniper rig, engaging OpFor in glorious battle and escaping James Bond-style back to your bat cave.

    2) It isn’t mine.

    3) I have no idea who created it.

    4) I do suspect whoever created it is amused and informed at this turn of events.

    5) I conclude it has value to help sharpen thinking, if nothing else.

    6) For you folks who attributed the CPX exercise to Kerodin – take a moment and reflect on how easily you swallowed that tidbit as fact, after it had been uttered by a single person. Please work to sharpen your discernment skillset. If you make such mistakes against a serious OpFor enemy, you will die.

    7) Question everything.


  15. some other anonymous

    Wasn’t privy to the CPX but I’ve been spreading the meme to tie up resources that are not mine.

  16. Bill Fletcher

    U bet I get nervous when someone on the sidelines wants to put me in the game.We call it common sense round this here parts.

  17. Bill Fletcher

    Am thinking of going with Big Battilionns Bill,not edgee enough?

  18. Oh I am dying here. You guys are just busting my ribs today with this one. Thanks Sam for clarifying that you don’t own this one. Those that were sent the original message are not ‘some insiders club’, not by far. If you weren’t included on that list, I couldn’t say why not, though I have much reason to believe it is NOT due to some insiders list.
    Those that feel this is long winded are in trouble. This is pretty much SOP on all legal and military documents and if you can’t find your way through this one WHEN ITS IN YOUR OWN INTERESTS, you sure as hell are going to struggle when you need to dig for information to save your own ass in your AO. (and it follows that you have never dug through some of the recent legislation going through the halls trying to find the pitfalls. Just sit back and take someone else’s word as fact.)

    • If it sounds like I’m jealous or something, sorry.

      The point isn’t whether trying to make an insider’s club was the intent. The point is the appearance. “hey there friend, know about wink-wink nudge-nudge?” Alternatively said, “I know about this and you don’t!” That’s the whole _point_ of discussing it in that manner. It’s a de facto hierarchy being imposed on a situation that has not evolved hierarchy yet. That never works. It also is what invites the D&D talk.

      That’s what rubs me the wrong way about this – that and the fact that it’s on the net, as opposed to IRL.

      As for it being standard for military documents, I don’t take that as a point in its favor. As the saying goes, there’s the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way.

      (my guess was Tom Baugh, btw, not that it matters)

      • and incidentally it hasn’t escaped my notice at least that the discussion all concerns the document itself as opposed to the the topic the document suggests. That, I think, was predictable

      • That was VERY MUCH the intent. There was another intent and that is what I am watching. Amazingly, it is working too. That is part of why I am laughing so hard.
        It doesn’t take an insider to figure out the cat and mouse going on here. Your points above seem to show that you have a grasp on what is reality here. I just find it hilarious how quickly certain aspects were ‘attained’ by hyperbole then reinforced with subsequent threads. All in the name of some Fratboy mentality.

        My point about it being SOP for military docs was a valid one. There are going to points in our future where someone is going to have to rifle through documentation to get the nuggets of truth out of them. Those that can’t handle doing so now are in trouble in the future when such a point is MANDATORY for survival.
        I would not want those, that can’t handle it now, on my immediate team.

  19. Bill Fletcher

    Folks,at this point in the roundup,If you are not guestioning everybody and everything,good luck with that.2 can keep a secret if 1 is dead.

  20. Pingback: Final thoughts on the CPX Foxtrot thing « The Virginia Rifleman

  21. Actually most of the comments are from Bill. Who suspiciously appeared and imediately attacked Matt Bracken and every one else who called him out on his abrasive tone. Do you live in Virgina Bill or just work in McLean?

    • Bill lives out west, in an armpit of a cesspool of a inconsequential tiny fake away…I mean breakaway section of someplace that tried to make a name for itself, and failed. So, much like the rest of Bills life so far, is failure.

      You go Bill….no…seriously….there’s the door. No, the other one…that one is the ladies room.

  22. Craig Cavanaugh

    Interesting discussion. Very informative, to say the least…

    • The “discussion” was very informative, I’d agree.

      • A. S. Layman


      • AP, you’ll have to remember that not everyone in FreeFor is/was military, or even if they were they may have never reached a rank where a MapX or CPX was ever a consideration. I have participated in both, a long time ago, as an Army Reservist, but the time I spent Active Army was too full of getting the work done to worry about what the officers were up to. I was a REMF, not front-line Infantry, and that probably had something to do with it as well.
        I do agree that the “discussion” has been enlightening. I tend to lurk around here in the evenings, after work. The amount of vitriol expended in the comments above gives new meaning to the phrase “circular firing squad”.

  23. ForceResponse

    Ok, I googled it. My mistake for thinking it was an actual article. I’ll play, but you guys gotta throw me a bone here. Hell, send me a private link to a super secret onion club house; I’ll show up, throw my dues in the cup and play nice. But you have to know how this comes across to the average Joe trying to find fifteen minutes a day to check in on the net between busting our asses at work, raising families, and training. We just don’t have time for this cloak and dagger shit, but I’ll try to make time if I think it’s important. I just need a little more help than you fellas, I guess. So, lead me.

    • I had nothing to do with the preparation of the original post, but I may be able to shed some light on it for you.
      There are a number of possible reasons for this post, and I believe at least a few of the replies have touched on some of them.
      The format was chosen to be familiar to military and police, with enough legal wording to avoid being a threat.
      There is no “secret onion club house”. ComSec is a subject worthy of books, not internet posts. Put simply, the internet is not secure.
      No one is here to “lead” you. If anyone claims to be, run.
      If you don’t have time for the “cloak and dagger shit”, I hope someone in your group does, because Intel work will keep more of you alive.

  24. Our new troll was ID’d here:


    It would be ideal if someone could post this link (or any additional info that might come to light, such as an address, phone #, etc.) in every thread that is trolled by this person. Of course, the Opfor will probably activate an different troll at that point – but it didn’t seem to take very long to ID the current one.

    I don’t remember seeing comments from this person before. It’s interesting that they seemed to appear right when Operation EFAD and CPX Foxtrot were announced. What’s that old saying… oh, yeah – “If you”re taking flak, then you know you’re over the target”.

  25. Prairie Fire

    It’s been fun reading this. I admit that I don’t have much of a clue as to the reason for the posting of CPX Foxtrot. It’s probably above my pay grade.

    The commenter Force Response, a couple of posts above this, makes a good point. He wonders why the average Joe should delve down into the topic. Why indeed? The average Joe (he might be found in the class of suburbia, since there has been so much talk as to demographic classes as to of where converts may be, lately) might be getting just a bit turned off from what’s been characterized as Dungeons and Dragons play. I assume that the average Joe in suburbia is still thought to be a person subject to conversion to FreeFor aims So… why the D&D stuff? Seems as if that was smoked out very eary on in this thread of comments, maybe by about the seventh commen on this thread.

    Consideration should be made towards a person who I think is a new commenter, Force Responder and people like him, as he talks about working people who have limited internet time at the end of their working day. People running efforts such as this CPX, might be warned that their games do tend to be a timekiller for people such as Force Responder and many others. The CPX effort, as it is followed by outsiders, may not help the cause too much if it is considered to be an insider game and a timekiller to those who have primary responsibilities such as family and hearth. People running this might especially consider the effect of their insider games, on the people who they claim to want to convert. Most people don’t like being played as outsiders, please consider this as the goat-fuck proceeds.

  26. I don’t think our beak featherer is anywhere NEAR smart enough to be who some think he is.

    Not even CLOSE.

  27. All replies noted and processed. This post is for informational use.
    It is not meant to be secure. The exercise is currently fulfilling its function across multiple channels. Pro or con, you are participating.

    Note this section->
    III. Public Communication Actions On or After the Action Date

    1. All participants are encouraged to publicly post the CPX content simultaneously on the action date and time in as many media, blogs, etc. as possible. Original postings with the CPX content, or with the CPX text content attached where possible, are more desirable rather than chain-linking back to a single source blog.

    2. During the public communication phase, exposure of the CPX content is encouraged on all communication forms without restriction, other than the hotlines as discussed previously, which are not to be used for the purposes of this CPX at any time. An intention is to create as wide a historical Internet footprint as possible, as well as expose means and personnel by which hostiles attempt to minimize this footprint over time.

    OpFor are not the only ones who can engage in PsyOps.

    It is not some super secret spy club, it is not meant to be easily read.
    It is serving it’s purpose, and undoubtedly unfolding exactly as designed.

    My 2 cents, folks.

  28. although this has great info, shit, It was like reading the instruction manual at the DMV. If you want someone to read this in a blog make it simple to understand. Its like someone was looking over their glass’ at you at some government counter somewhere, pretending that they understand it and giving you that look like, “yur a dumass fur not understandin dis” BUt thanks for the info anyway.

  29. Thought experiments aren’t just for Einstein anymore.

  30. Last line in the manual: “read and understand this document completely before performing any actions. If you have questions, turn the paper over and wait quietly.”

    It’s an exercise to weed out people on mind-control drugs, or who aren’t taking their prescribed mind-control drugs.