Case Study: Appalachian Ranger Association

Too many groups are built on lies. ARA is one of them.

When it comes to political activism and group-based pursuits, a phenomenon occurs so often that it seems almost to be the standard. There are specific tactics at play, and many people aren’t able to see them early or even put their finger on what’s happening; they only know that it feels wrong. It feels like manipulation. It feels like a gut-level problem.

That’s because it is a gut-level problem. In fact, the same processes are used by cults, tyrants, and abusers of all kinds, to keep people controlled and compliant.

I’ve been writing about dynamics in activism groups for a long time, and the example I saw recently is a perfect case study in this phenomenon. In fact, the story could have swapped out names and locations for a hundred different political activism groups and the events would be the same. Today we’re going to walk through this story and point out some of the machinations being used.

The Setting

I recently read a series of articles written last week called “The Man Behind the Curtain,” about the Appalachia Ranger Association and its founder/commander, Mark Polcwiartek. The ARA website, Instagram account, and other group-run online presences miraculously disappeared when the first article came out, but the internet is forever. You can still see backups of the ARA website, and when I was researching the organization for the purposes of this article, I found that there is more out there.

If you’re a longtime reader here, this article isn’t anything groundbreaking. I’ve posted about specific organizations before; this is just another example of that.

Tactic: Stolen Valor

Mark Polcwiartek is a busy guy with a long and storied career, just ask him. Unfortunately, his claims don’t seem to check out; the author of the articles, who goes by “Smokey,” has the receipts.

The Stolen Valor tactic is an extremely common one. People often claim to be something they are not for the purposes of clout. This is because of the currency system used in political activism. People don’t want to follow someone who appears clueless; therefore, if you want people to follow you and do what you say, you need to have one of two things:

1. A resume that says you know what you’re doing,

2. ‘Action currency’ from recent group actions.

The resume actions need to be more intensive than whatever you’re doing now. This provides the ‘proof.’ For instance, if Leader X is setting up a protest event, he might tell people that he has been involved in protest actions that turned violent. If he is building a militia-style group, he will claim combat experience—or at the very least, he will have some event that he can point to that ‘proves’ he is willing to ‘go up against the feds.’

Whatever he is advocating, if you dig into his experience, he will have something that is further on the scale than whatever he is trying to currently do. One prominent group leader consistently points to his experience at a certain standoff as ‘proof’ that he has what it takes to lead. Any cursory look into his actions show that his moment of glory was a staged photo op. That doesn’t matter—he has ‘skin in the game’ and therefore he has followers. Polcwiartek is no different; his ‘been there, done that’ attitude forms the foundation for everything else—especially the control mechanisms we are about to look at.

Bad, corrupt leaders always claim to have done something they didn’t actually do, or exaggerate the things they did.

How to Combat This Tactic: It’s very simple. Check every single claim made by your group leader. Military experience is easy to check, and there are plenty of websites where you can get ideas on the right questions to ask; just put “How to spot stolen valor” into your favorite search engine. When they’re claiming to have been part of an agency or organization, start reaching out and asking people about it. When they’re claiming to have acted a certain way at a certain event, talk to others who were there. Ask for photos from that time. Ask for details. No one with any integrity will ever care that you’re verifying their claims, and if their actions were so clandestine they can’t tell you a single thing about it, then they wouldn’t have mentioned it to begin with, and they wouldn’t be using it for clout.

Note: I’ll be posting another article on this specific thing in the near future, with more resources about how to do this step-by-step.

Tactic: False Claims About the Group

If someone is willing to lie about themselves, it’s pretty logical that they’ll also lie about what they create; namely, their group. You’ll see this quite often; leaders claim that their group is doing all sorts of things, but if you dig into that you’ll see that they haven’t done any of them.

In the case of ARA, Polcwiartek claimed on his group’s website that his group had several functions:

1. First Responders

2. Humanitarian Assistance

3. Crisis ‘Stabilizers’

Let’s take a look at the language on these items, however, and you’ll see something interesting. Keep in mind that these aren’t accusations I’m making; in fact, Smokey didn’t make them either. He simply put up the screenshot of Mark’s own words on the website.

First Responders

“We have tactical medical personnel, Emergency Medical Technicians, and nurses all within our ranks able to respond to any and all medical emergencies.”

There are two separate pieces here to note. First, they have people with medical skillsets in their organization. Second, those personnel are able to respond to any and all medical emergencies.

Here’s the thing. He doesn’t say they are responding as ARA members. He doesn’t say that the group is involved with or collaborating with an emergency services agency. He literally just says that some of his members have medical training and ‘are able to respond.’

If I’m an EMT or paramedic, and I make a political activism group named Militia R Us, when I respond to an emergency am I doing it on behalf of Militia R Us, or am I doing it on behalf of the ambulance service, EMS agency, or fire department to which I am attached? It’s sneaky wording, and it’s meant to convey the idea that ARA is standing by with people at the ready if there’s an emergency.

Some of his members are probably responding to emergencies, but they aren’t doing it as ARA. Essentially, he is taking the experience and knowledge that his members have, or even had before they came, and extrapolating it to denote group capability. Do the members get the credit for the work they’re doing as first responders with their respective agencies? Of course not. The group is taking the credit; more to the point, he as the leader is taking the credit.

Here’s another issue. Polwiartek does not hold any sort of medical license or EMS license in several individual states that I checked. Why is this important? Because in order to respond to emergencies, EMS personnel must have medical direction. Not only is Polcwiartek not a licensed medical doctor serving in a medical director capacity, he’s not even an EMT or paramedic himself. Did ARA have a medical director? Who is that person and how can they be contacted?

This doesn’t mean his members are somehow misusing their license or breaking the law—they’re not the ones at fault here. It means they’re being used by a shady leader who is making claims about the capability of the group based on the work of individual members in their outside lives.

Humanitarian Assistance

“We are capable of sourcing and distributing aid and care alongside local agencies to communities hit by disaster or social unrest.”

There are a few words you need to note. First, the word “capable.” He does not say they are doing it, or that they have done it, or even that they have an agreement to do it at a future time. He says they are “capable of” it.

Secondly, look at what he is saying they are capable of doing: “sourcing and distributing aid and care alongside local agencies.” That’s some vague language. What does that mean exactly? Perhaps it doesn’t matter, because ARA as an organization hasn’t done it; his own language says that.

Now, keep in mind that this doesn’t mean the members themselves have not done it. He might have some actual disaster relief specialists in his group with real-world experience. Again, however, they are not performing this function AS the group, or FOR the group, and they don’t get individual credit for it. That credit goes to the group, and by extension, to Mark.

Crisis Stabilizers

In times of unrest, we seek to create security and safety for those unable to provide it for themselves. We also assist in search and rescue operations.

More vague language. When you “seek to create” something, it means you have not yet created it. And who are the people who are “unable to provide [safety and security] for themselves”?

This time he also makes a blatant claim—that ‘we also assist in search and rescue operations.’ What operations? What specifically did ARA do? What did he himself do? Are his members in Civil Air Patrol? Are they members of their county SAR group? If so, they’re still not acting as ARA. Did they show up to a search for a missing person and help walk some ground? Lots of people do that; they don’t, however, use it as a resume item.

There is also a claim of being a non-profit NGO. Smokey does a great job of parsing all that out so I won’t repeat or detract from his work. The bottom line, however, is that the website claimed the group already had the status when they did not.

How to Combat This Tactic: Pay attention to language, specifically verbs. When someone is seeking to do something, or attempting to do something, they haven’t accomplished it. Questions you should be asking here include:

1. Is the language vague?

2. Can the group point to something specific they were involved in?

3. What did they do, in real words?

4. Who did they help?

5. What was the agency they were attached to at the time?

6. Can their involvement be verified?

7. What was the outcome?

If they’ve done real things, they’ll be able to answer those questions—and they won’t mind doing so.

Remember the rule: If they brought it up as proof of their group awesomeness, then questions about it are fair game.

Abusive Control Tactics

Now we get to the meat of the issue: the control mechanisms by which certain types of leaders keep their groups in line. Smokey has a nice collection of screenshots from the internal leadership chats that show these tactics at work.

Before we dig in, you should understand the human validation drive. I’ve written about it in detail here, here, and here. Essentially, the following statement explains the point I’m making.

People want to feel like they matter, and therefore anyone who offers them that feeling can become an authority figure by default. If that person chooses to misuse the power given to them, they will abuse their members.

We all have a validation tank of sorts, and we are always looking to fill it—sometimes in unhealthy ways. Even healthy goals, such as feeling like you’re making a difference, can be twisted by manipulative people for their own ends. This can leave you feeling decidedly UNvalidated…but the scraps of validation that you do get will keep you there long after you should leave.

In the screenshots that Smokey posted in parts 2 and 3, several things are present in the words of Polcwiartek that show a groupthink mentality and culture. There are eight characteristics of groupthink; I see evidence of several of them, and while I won’t opine on things I don’t have access to, I would bet that those with more information and context could point to the rest in the culture. The ones I see specifically include (but are not limited to):

• Belief in Inherent Morality: Polcwiartek was so convinced of his moral superiority that he had no problem deleting chats and hiding problems from members, or even presenting one face to the public and other to his ‘trusted people.’ He even gaslighted people on the back end, flipping the script and trying to convince them that they were the bad seeds while he was the victim. This tactic works because he’s already established his ‘authority’ with his false claims, including the claim that he had already shot and killed at least one person.

• Out-Group Stereotypes: He was very quick to shut down dissent, believing that if you questioned his leadership or tactics, you were a problem child that needed to be purged—you’re either with us or against us.

• Direct Pressure on Dissenters: The resulting pressure on members is obvious. They are given repeated warnings: comply, or be ostracized. Some left but others seemed to be trying to right the ship without getting tossed overboard themselves.

These things are all psychological manipulation, and its goal is simple: keep the members in line and keep them taking orders from him.

How to Combat This Tactic: Understand groupthink, control mechanisms, and psychological tactics. When you see them being used, leave the group. It may feel like an emotional breakup. You might feel alienated from your cause or as though you no longer matter. That’s the manipulation at work—and if you don’t resist those thoughts, you’ll let them convince you to stay in a horrible and maybe even dangerous situation.

But Why Didn’t All The Members Leave on Their Own?

It’s a valid question, right? It’s obvious from the leadership chats that there were serious issues. People were pointing to things and saying, “Hey this is wrong.” There were questions behind the scenes about Polcwiartek’s claimed exploits, some of which sounded ridiculous. If it was all so dysfunctional, why didn’t the entire group just WALK?

The answer isn’t that simple. I’ve written about it in the context of infiltration, but even if what you have is a run-of-the-mill jerk, the control mechanisms are often the same—as are the effects. As I wrote previously:

Someone who needs to feed their own narcissism is just as dangerous as someone joining in order to rot your group from the inside because they’re opposed to your goals.

Why Should I Care About Any of This?

You may have never even heard of ARA, or Mark Polcwiartek. However, groups like this exist all over the country. You might be in a similar group, feeling that uneasiness about some of the things going on. You might have questions about your leader: is he who he says he is? Is he telling the truth about what he’s done or what he believes? Are you truly valued, or are you being used?

Good leaders don’t do the things we’ve just talked about. They welcome transparency, integrity, and they take care of their people. They don’t leverage lies as control mechanisms, and they don’t leverage people’s validation drives against them in a negative way.

If your cause matters enough to you for you to be involved in furthering it, then it matters enough to do it right. If you’re experiencing groupthink, have bad leadership, or simply have a gnawing gut feeling that something is wrong, then it is wrong. Walk away. Make a new group. Find an existing one that’s doing things right. Whatever you do, don’t stay in toxicity. You’re not helping your cause—or yourself.

Kit Perez is a counterintelligence and deception analyst. She is the co-author of Basics of Resistance with Claire Wolfe, and the author of The Mindset of Resistance. She is currently working on her third book.