This article first appeared on the Ammo.com web site. It is re-posted with permission. If you’re looking for great prices on good ammo, you need to check their site out!
“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”
When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government – inevitably someone points out the stark difference in firepower between a guerilla uprising in the United States and the United States government itself.
This is not a trivial observation. The U.S. government spends more on the military than the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. Plus, the potential of a tyrannical government is arguably upon us – with the federal government spying on its own citizens, militarizing local police departments with equipment and tactics from the War on Terror, and repeatedly searching Americans, which desensitizes them to this invasive process.
There is much historical precedent, however, for guerilla uprisings defeating more powerful enemies. For instance, the Cold War saw both superpowers brought to their knees by rural farmers – for the Soviets, their adventure in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and for the United States, the Vietnam War against the Viet Cong.
In both cases, nuclear weapons could have been used against the guerilla uprising, but were not. Even assuming the use of nuclear weapons from the position of total desperation, it’s hard to imagine they would have made much of a difference in the final outcome of either conflict. Unlike the invading armies, the local resistance enjoyed both broad-based support as well as knowledge of the local terrain.
Now imagine such a scenario in the United States. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so. From Red Dawn to James Wesley, Rawles’ Patriots series, there is a relatively long-standing tradition of American survival literature about the hoi polloi resisting the tyranny of big government, either before or after a collapse.
For the purposes of this article, consider what a domestic American terrorist or freedom fighter (after all, the label is in the eye of the beholder) organization based on the militia movement would look like in open revolt against the United States government. In the spirit of levity, we’ll call them the “Hillbilly Viet Cong.” They would most likely find their largest numbers in Appalachia, but don’t discount their power in the American Redoubt, or the more sparsely populated areas of the American Southwest, including rural Texas.
Here we have tens of thousands of Americans armed to the teeth with combat experience, deep family ties to both the police and the military, extensive knowledge of the local geography, and, in many cases, survivalist training. Even where they are not trained, militant and active, they enjoy broad support among those who own a lot of guns and grow a lot of food.
On the other side, you have the unwieldy Baby Huey of the rump U.S. government’s military, with some snarky BuzzFeed editorials serving as propaganda.
Could the Hillbilly Viet Cong take down the USG? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s difficult to imagine that the USG could take them down.
Indeed, even with a number of nasty little toys on the side of the federal government, we live in an age of a technologically levelled playing field. This is true even when it comes to instruments of warfare. While the USG has nuclear weapons, it’s worth remembering that a pound of C4 strapped to a cheap and readily available commercial-grade drone is going to break a lot of dishes.
This sort of guerilla insurgency has a name: It’s called fourth-generational warfare (4GW), and you might be surprised to learn that you already live in this world.
What Are the First Three Generations of Warfare?
To understand how 4GW is a new and improved form of war, we first need to explain what the first three generations of warfare were:
First-Generation Warfare
The first generation (1GW) is basically what you would have seen in the movie 300. The hallmarks of this generation of warfare are armies from two different state actors leveraging line-and-column tactics and wearing uniforms to distinguish between themselves.
This generation is not entirely without subterfuge. For example, counterfeit currency was used to devalue the money supply during the 1GW Napoleonic Wars. Other examples of 1GW conflicts include the English Civil War and the American Revolutionary War.
Second-Generation Warfare
The second generation (2GW) comes with the advent of rifling and breech-loaded weapons. As students of military history know, the invention of rifling was one of the reasons that the United States Civil War was so bloody. This meant that firearms that were once mostly for show after 100 feet or so, were now deadly weapons – and tactics did not immediately evolve.
But evolve they did. Many things we take for granted as being just part of warfare – such as camouflage, artillery, and reconnaissance – are defining features of 2GW. The American Civil War is probably the first 2GW conflict. Others include the First World War, the Spanish Civil War and, much more recently, the Iran-Iraq War. The United States military coined this phrase in 1989.
Third-Generation Warfare
This phase of warfare, also known a 3GW, is the late modern version of warfare, where speed and stealth play a much bigger role. Weapons and tactics alone are less important. Instead, military units seek to find ways to outmaneuver one another before – or even instead of – meeting on the battlefield.
The era of 3GW was initiated with the Blitzkrieg, which marked the decisive end to cavalry and replaced it with tank and helicopter warfare. Junior officers were given more leeway to give orders. The Second World War was the first 3GW conflict, with the Korean, Vietnam and both Iraq Wars becoming further examples of this style of fighting.
What Is Fourth-Generation Warfare?
The most direct way of discussing 4GW is to say that it describes any war between a state actor and a non-state actor. This is also known as asymmetrical warfare, but it’s not the only difference between 4GW and other, earlier forms of conflict. Asymmetrical warfare does, to be sure, blur the lines between combatants and civilians. This is in part what made the Bush-era “war on terror” so difficult and complicated: The war was against a set of ideas rather than a nation or even an extra-national army.
There are a number of characteristics that flow from the state actor vs. non-state actor aspect of 4GW. The first is the use of terrorism as a regular tactic, almost always on the part of the non-state actor. Particularly for the state actor, non-combatants become tactical problems – you simply can’t just carpet bomb and hope everything works out.
The non-state actors tend to be highly decentralized. One faction can stop fighting as another 10 crop up in its place. Funding and source of manpower and material comes from a wide array of sources spread out over nearly the entire globe. This necessarily makes 4GW long and drawn out over years or perhaps even decades. The psychological warfare, propaganda and lawfare aspects are an integral part of the conflict.
The genesis of 4GW lies in the Cold War and the post-colonial era. Insurgent groups and counter-insurgency groups vied for power, often times with state actors operating behind the scenes and in the background. Sometimes the goal was to establish a new state or reestablish a defunct one. However, many times the only goal was to delegitimize the existing state and create a power vacuum.
Places such as Laos, Myanmar, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, the Congo, Cuba, East Timor, Korea, Poland, and Afghanistan were all pieces in the global chessboard of the Cold War as various insurgency and counter-insurgency groups backed by the Soviets, the Americans, and/or the Chinese fought one another or fought against occupying forces.
What Is the Difference Between 4GW and Asymmetrical Warfare?
Put simply, all 4GW is asymmetrical, but not all asymmetrical warfare is 4GW. It refers to virtually any asymmetry in combat. This can be as simple as one military having more advanced technology than another – for example, the English longbow at the Battle of Crécy gave the English forces a decisive technological advantage. The Spartan forces were greatly outnumbered by their Persian adversaries and used the landscape to compensate.
In one sense, 4GW can be seen as asymmetric warfare come to full fruition. The less powerful forces must find a way to compensate for their relative lack of strength. On the other hand, the stronger forces must paradoxically find ways to compensate for their abundance of strength. This is because of the all-important propaganda war, an integral part of 4GW. State actors often seek deniability during war by proxy when engaging non-state actors.
John Boyd, Chuck Spinney, and 4GW
Colonel John Boyd may be the most remarkable unsung hero in all of American military history. Widely considered to be the greatest U.S. fighter pilot ever, Boyd developed the F-15 and F-16, revolutionized ground tactics in war, and covertly designed the coalition battle plans for the 1990-91 Gulf War. He foresaw 4GW, and he shunned wealth, fame, and power in his pursuit to get things done, despite the bureaucracy of the Pentagon.
Boyd closely studied Sun-Tzu (The Art of War) and Carl von Clausewitz (On War). This informed his push for greater adaptability and agility of United States fighting forces. Simple, cheap, effective, dependable, durable weapons were prized over flashy tricks. Decentralized command, control and communications were Boyd’s cause – looking for a way to avoid burying boots on the ground underneath layers of officers with potentially less field knowledge than they had.
Franklin C. “Chuck” Spinney became the voice of 4GW preparation after Boyd’s passing inside the Pentagon. He spent more than 20 years campaigning against rigid forms of thinking and budget bloat. Spinney believes that the 9/11 attacks should have been a wake-up call for the United States military, and sees 4GW as something beyond mere terrorism, but rather a new form of warfare. He believes the United States military is stuck in second-generation warfare thinking and is woefully unequipped for 4GW. Ultimately, Spinney believes that the United States military’s response to 9/11 in particular and 4GW in general was not enough.
Where Is 4GW Happening Today?
While many think 4GW is something in the far-off future, it’s actually happening right now. The most archetypal 4GW is perhaps the conflict with ISIS – a non-state actor with recruits all over the world in conflict with several states. Some of the conflict is classically military, but there is also the propaganda war taking place all over the Internet. In fact, ISIS was using the PlayStation network to communicate because they correctly believed it wasn’t being monitored by international intelligence services. These attacks on the West were not limited to the area controlled by ISIS, but extended all around the world.
Counter-attacking ISIS was a bit like trying to catch water in a net. Attacking ISIS proper was possible: There was territory. But attacking the support of ISIS was a whole other problem.
It’s worth noting that the international Islamist movement is not limited to ISIS. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots still exist. What’s more, they seem to multiply over time. This is another feature of 4GW. A state actor can make peace with one faction of a group while other, more militant factions simply retreat deeper into the metaphorical mountains to continue the fight – which is precisely the situation that the Republic of the Philippines has faced in its struggle against the Moros separatists of the Southern Philippines.
But the Philippines and Syria are all likely far away from where you live in terms of geography, sociology, demographics and culture. What does 4GW have to do with London, Paris or even Springfield, MO? Probably a lot more than you think.
See Also:
- Guest Post: Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America’s Domestic Viet Cong- Part 2 (Active on 11/18/18)
This article first appeared on Ammo.com
It is pretty hard to claim the Vietnam Cong were successful in the Vietnam War. That’s because after the 1968 Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong were, for the most part, dead. The only forces left on the battlefield were the remnants of the North Vietnamese Army. And even their Commanding General, Giap, admitted they had been destroyed.
The United States was actually defeated by the American main stream media ably led by Walter Cronkite.
I know this personally because I was overhead watching in a helicopter gunship.
Bud,
1. It would have been virtually impossible for the US military to defeat North Vietnam.
2. The US military should never again be used as pawns to die for greedy bankers and the military equipment’s Big Corporate.
For veterans to not believe #1 is understandable. For veterans to not understand #2 is truly sad.
Smedley Butler was major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. He is author of ‘War is a Racket’.
One can continue believing government lies and enabling them to use soldiers as pawns, or you can spend a lousy $5 and get the truth.
“It would have been virtually impossible for the US military to defeat North Vietnam.” Sorry. You’re absolutely, totally wrong.
It is clear that you have a deep-seated political perspective that is unlikely to be changed by anything anyone says here. You obviously see yourself as a pawn (which is to say you are a “victicrat”) on several levels, not just when it comes to issues like Vietnam. I suspect that you also think that every time we attack an ISIS target, all we do is cause more Jihadis to rally to the ISIS banner, and that our policy is insane. You are, however, entitled to your opinion.
We were locked in a struggle against international communism, its most recent victory at the time being Cuba. The reality is that the US was a member of the SEATO treaty in the 1960s, one like the NATO treaty that held that an attack on one nation was an attack on all.
Had the US stood silently by and done nothing to stop North Vietnamese aggression, its commitments around the world would have become highly suspect and perhaps even meaningless. The march of communism was a real and present danger. Early in the 1960s Americans wanted communism stopped in its tracks. John F. Kennedy’s exit from the world stage probably saved his “legacy” because he did not have to make the hard choices Lyndon Johnson inherited.
We lost no battle in Vietnam. Americans simply lost the will to fight. I heard an anecdote about an American general who was supposed to have said to a Vietnamese general years later words to the effect, “We never lost a single battle.” The Vietnamese general supposedly replied, “What’s your point?”
As an example of Americans’ unwillingness to fight, several young males in my college fraternity were doing their best not to be drafted. Some flocked to the Guard and Reserve, enlisting when their college deferments were up, knowing that there was only small likelihood that their units would be called up and sent to Vietnam. The president of my fraternity enlisted in the Army and selected an MOS that he believed would result in his obtaining a non-combat assignment. It worked. He performed his military service at the Pentagon.
The Vietnam Conflict began with serious public support. The Tet Offensive resulted in the Viet Cong being left dead on the field, but it was the beginning of the end of great support for the war when what was depicted on the TV screens in American living rooms made it apparent that victory was going to be purchased at a higher cost than Americans were willing to pay. Americans always want their wars to be short, simple, and cheap, which is to say, “splendid little wars.” In principle, this is not a bad preference. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Had we simply bombed the North Vietnamese dykes and flooded vast portions of the country which we could easily have done, we would have brought North Vietnam to its knees. We never did that because we were afraid that China would enter the conflict, just as China did in Korea when “Chinese volunteers” crossed the Yalu River by the hundreds of thousands and drove American forces southward after our forces had already mopped the floor with the North Korean Army.
We always fought the Vietnam with one hand tied behind our back, fearful of a massive Chinese invasion that might be the first step leading to a nuclear war. And all of this happened during a period when massive Soviet forces were poised to punch through the Fulda Gap in Germany if the decision was made by the Russians to pull out all the stops in the march of International Communism.
While the Vietnam War did not turn out the way we wanted it, it proved that the “domino theory” was correct. Laos and Cambodia fell thereafter. Enough time was bought by American treasure and toil to save Thailand, however, and perhaps later, Indonesia.
About the author’s point, I have a dim view of the numbers of Americans who would actually join an “American insurgency” should our government begin a methodical offensive that deprived American citizens of their rights. LTC Dave Grossman’s “The Sheep, The Wolf & The Guard Dog” divides society into each of those categories. (Some people today refer to the first category as “Sheeple.”) There are precious few Guard Dogs in society, while the number of people who are Sheep, and who are sometimes referred to as pawns, are many. Most men would sell their birthrights for “a mess of pottage”–or a full stomach while cuddled around a warm fireplace at night.
Well said, Survivorman99! Well said. Nice to see a cogent answer based on facts rather than emotions.
I think a point the author fails to fully address is that when the government over-reacts, like they did at Ruby Ridge and in Waco — they create resentment and anger. This simmers and can either slowly dissipate or boil over, depending on what other provocations the government offers. If things spiral out of control, more militia members and sympathizers are created out of those who can no longer stand the government’s actions.
If you have not done so, I recommend reading Unintended Consequences. I favor that approach rather than running battles.
We WOULD have won the war if it were not for chicken-sh!t Presidents Johnson and Nixon restricting the use of force that our military was permitted to use. Do you REALLY think that a third-rate country like North Viet Nam could have matched us if we had full use of all of our weapons ? And not including NUCLEAR weapons too. We could have ground them into hamburger. OUR POLITICIANS including our Presidents were not playing to win. Obviously, the fault of democrats and RINOs in congress and the communist-loving unpatriotic news media, same as now.
I supported the war at the time, but now I know that we should not have been there if we had NO INTENTION of winning. It was a horrible waste of Great Americans. It is IMMORAL to fight a war if you don”t intend to WIN.
A cautionary note when discussing 4GW and using examples like Afghanistan and Vietnam to advance the idea that a small arms militia can avoid defeat by a State military.
First, the mountains and jungles played a significant factor in those conflicts. Geography will determine who has the advantage, which is clearly understood by the author of the article when he predicts Appalachia and the Redoubt as internal points of resistance. Why gloss over this important fact?
Second, the US and others supplied the Mujahideen with weapons that could disable tanks and helicopters which are not readily available to militias under the 2nd amendment. The Chinese government had been helping the Vietnamese in kicking out the French occupation even before Americans showed up to fight them. Both of those conflicts had rival State sponsors supporting their “militias.” Will American Militias be able to count on the same type of advisors, money, weapons, and misc. equipment?
Does this mean that American Militias are incapable of holding the Coasts and the Heartland? Not necessarily, but I’d like to point out one other asymmetry about 4GW, the casualty rate. Consider that an estimated 1 million+ people died on the “militia” side of each conflict. I’d say a 16:1 casualty rate qualifies as asymmetrical, wouldn’t you?
Let’s be realistic and accurate in our discussions, or we will descend into the realm of propaganda. Let no man think for a second that victory is assured or will come cheaply, if it comes to that grim fate.
John Boyd reminded me of an excellent old book called Pentagon Wars by James Burton. If memory serves me, Boyd was Burton’s mentor and is featured heavily in the book. Great read IMO.
Yamamoto is said to have told his superiors that an invasion of the USA would fail “because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle”. He understood us but the Democrats of today do not. To all of us who took the oath, it still applies even after we have left the service. Some of us may be too old to run around in the bush but we are certainly willing/able to support those that can.
Two points:
1. The militia as we know it and talk about it today is used by the left to make you’all look like white supremacists. It is virtually impossible for you to have a militia no matter how careful you are to keep out the bad guys and how dedicated you are to the constitution and not fall into that trap. The MSM will always side with the left on this and there are a thousand examples in the news today. So stop with the militia “thingy” you might as well put on NAZI patches. The same goes for those nuts who like to walk around with AR-15’s on their shoulders. You are not doing your cause and the rest of us any good.
2. If it ever comes to civil war or insurrection, or guerilla warfare it is over. It may take weeks, months or years but it is over. Russia and China are sitting out there drooling at the thought. Together we stand divided we fall. Simple as that. Find a way within the political system or change the political system but drop the talk and threats of civil war. I don’t want to lose everything simply because this concept is so hard for some people to understand. You can’t win! The best you can hope for is that the entire U.S. government fails and thus we all lose but if that is your idea of a victory you are too far off the reservation for me to accept.
How do you “work within the political system” when the other side hates you and wants you dead?
How do you “change the political system” when the system itself is set up to be unchangeable?
The cognitive dissonance is palpable in your post.
Reread what I wrote because your response shows you failed to understand. Imagine someone were to tell the Southern leaders of the Civil War what the future held for them if they went ahead with their disastrous plan. Well of course they wouldn’t have listened. The really snotty ones would have retorted something about their cognitive dissonance I suspect. And they would have blithely gone into battle and destroy their entire nation and kill 100’s of thousands of their friends, family and countrymen. After all the idea of a political solution was somehow worse than all that destruction and suffering. And such is human nature.
The system is being changed right now. Trump is putting conservative judges in place. The Rinos never made this a priority, even now Flake wants to tank it to get his own way on a bill that can’t pass and shouldn’t pass. The problem is too many good people doing nothing or not voting. War/revelation/insurrection is not to be trifled with. IF it were to happen it will certainly get out of hand, it will be taken over by forces you would not like and it will in the end be perverted to destroy the country. It would be the biggest mistake in history and all because a few recalcitrant people didn’t want to try to solve it politically. Be careful what you wish for.
You got it GWTW. People keep assuming it would be like our revolutionary war where both sides were relatively equal when it came to weapons. Not so today in any way shape or form. Period. God help us all if that happens. Even if it don’t happen God help us NOW.
This paragraph alone; “Here we have tens of thousands of Americans armed to the teeth with combat experience, deep family ties to both the police and the military, extensive knowledge of the local geography, and, in many cases, survivalist training. Even where they are not trained, militant and active, they enjoy broad support among those who own a lot of guns and grow a lot of food.” has to strike terror in the hearts of the elitists, centrists and willful “It should all be free because otherwise, it’s just not fair” people. That they would create a world worse than Hitlers is ignored with a disdainful sniff.
I would like to bring everyone’s attention to yesterday’s comments by California Democrat Eric Swallwell. Yes, “it” (ie. a potential armed battle against Second Amendment Constitutionalists) is being contemplated by the liberals as soon as they can get a Democratic president and a Democrat controlled Senate. This guy is considering a 2020 run for president.
I dread the thought of an all-out civil war. Who would be who? I’m sure the uniforms would not be the clear cut blue and grey.
Think back to Finland during WW2. The Finns targeted and eliminated Soviet leadership. This method of homeland defense resulted in victory against overwhelming odds.
Alas, while Finnish forces bloodied the Soviets, the results were, unfortunately, a bit less satisfying than you describe. “Finnish concessions and territorial losses exceeded Soviet pre-war demands.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
@ GoneWithTheWind.
You write: “Find a way within the political system or change the political system…”. Given that the political system is a self sustaining corrupt entity these days, just how would you suggest achieving that change? Term limits? Good luck with that one. A return to the Constitution? Good luck again. How about a return to sound money and the abolition of the Fed? If I wish you any more good luck you’ll have enough to win the Powerball. Once rights are deeply infringed upon, they are very difficult to resurrect to any level of quality implementation… UNLESS there is armed insurrection.
You continue in your comment to say: “The best you can hope for is that the entire U.S. government fails and thus we all lose…”. How would we lose if the government, as it is being practiced today, fails? When you cure cancer, what do you replace it with?
The idea of any sort of violence directed at our government officials is abhorrent for sure. And because it is so repulsive, it tends to only be talked about but not undertaken. But rest assured, unless all the good-luck-with-that suggestions I mentioned come to fruition, and soon, this Republic will be lost forever without watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If you cannot accept this, that’s OK. The idea hurts a lot and I suspect 97% of the people cannot accept such horror. But reality, being what it is, cannot be denied. With that, respectfully I can only request one thing, please don’t get in the way of the 3% who do accept it.
Ahhhh! The rashness of youth. There is an old Polish saying; “Too soon old, too late smart. I am sure from your post that you think you will win. You won’t! And because you stand up and try you will be among the first to be taken or killed. But your effort will put into motion forces that will not be denied or swayed. It will continue with different leadership, foreign supported perhaps or just home grown anarchists. And over time they too will be killed and others take up the cudgel. Until the tattered and torn country is unable to defend itself from a outside attack and inevitably that happens.
The Russian revolution was intended to through out the government that mistreated their citizens/serfs. But it got out of hand quite quickly and was taken over by autocratic Marxist/socialist who used the disorder and chaos to take power. What a colossal mistake, but you couldn’t have warned them against it because of their hubris and ignorance.
So perhaps in the end you are right. In that we have to destroy ourselves through civil war rather than solve our problem at the ballot box because we simply aren’t smart enough to learn from history and thus must repeat it.
Bless you GWTW.
FWIW when I was young, I did believe in the idealism of the ballot box. But my time is running short and for over 6 decades I have witnessed our choices there become steadily worse. There comes a time in every man’s life when he draws a line in the sand and says “This far and no more.” I pray you get there some day.
The most difficult fox to catch is one that has had it’s toes pinched in the trap before.
I admire your idealism. I agree with your sentiments. We only disagree in that you think an armed violent uprising can win and I do not.
Will I get there some day? Probably not, I am probably older than you and anymore a victory for me is no pain, a bowel movement and a good doctors appointment where I don’t have to start chemo. Here is what I think would precipitate your war against the government. It could be massive over stepping by a left wing president and congress. It could be a much larger invasion on our Southern border and capitulation by our government (to include amnesty to 20,000,000 illegals). It could be a country elsewhere starting a war, perhaps Taiwan, or Iran, that threatened us here. And of course the very likely scenario that the Muslim terrorists finally acquire/purchase a nuclear device and set it off in NYC or Wash. DC. Something too big to ignore that finally gets the silent majority off their butts and away from the TV. THEN, maybe, your “movement” would have majority support and as long as they didn’t over step their bounds, that “maybe” they could influence/cause great change. I do think something like this will happen and it could cause a reversal of the left wing’s popularity. But until and unless something like that happens you will not be able to rally 60%-75% of the country behind you and it will be YOU and your movement that will be considered the terrorists and it will result in a consolidation of power on the left. Sorry! That’s just the way it is and any hopes and plans should be built around the reality on the ground.
In the mean time we need to elect good solid conservatives. We need to protect our constitutional rights. We need to decide which battles are worth putting all our political power on and which battles should wait for a better day. The next battle we must win is to stop the left from destroying Trump. He isn’t perfect just head and shoulders better than any other conservative with a chance to hold power. We need to stand with him.
How has “solve our problems at the ballot box” worked so far?
For me personally, I don’t care to be governed by the Republicans any more than I care to be governed by the Democrats. The only choice is between rightful liberty and tyranny. Failure to understand that Republicans are also the enemy of liberty is to have missed the whole lesson of America’s slide into tyranny.
Right wing/Left wing – same bird. No thanks.
Good solid conservatives? What exactly are they “conserving”?
Certainly not my right to live free of all government intrusion and coercion.
Certainly not my right to enjoy ALL of the fruits of my labor.
Certainly not my life, liberty, and property.
Need I go on?
“Conservatives” are statists of a different kind than “liberals” but they are statists nonetheless.
There is no “magic politician” or “conservative” coming to save you.
It seems to me the objective of the insurgency in a CW II would be:
1. Avoid any conflict with the US military (My son is currently serving, don’t nobody shoot at our children).
2. Destroy as much of the anti-Constitution elite as it takes to make them beg for peace. Terms to be a restoration of a free peoples Constitutional rights.
I do not wish anyone to wage war on our government. What I want, and what the country needs, is a return to Constitutional law. Of course electing good solid representatives to that end would be great… but where are they? The system is rigged to keep them away from office even if they should appear. The swamp is very deep as well as wide and those making it a swamp are the ones that need to be out of office. I simply cannot see viable candidates on the horizon. I wish it was different. IF we had good candidates, yes, I agree with you in that the ballot box can work. But a horse named “IF” is big enough to give everyone a ride.
And a minute yet salient point. There are no such things as Constitutional (as in Constitutionally granted or Constitutionally guaranteed) rights. There are only inherent rights that the Constitution happens to recognize. Rights cannot be eliminated; they can only be infringed upon. All rights stem from the primordial right… the right to life and in that we are all equal. Obviously my rights stop if my exercise of such rights crosses the line of infringement on the rights of others. With every right we have comes an attending responsibility to not infringe on the rights of others. The individual is sovereign and our Constitution was set up to protect the individual. To uphold the Constitution is to uphold the individual. This is where politicians have failed and it is why individual politicians who fail need to be out of office. The longer it takes for this to happen, the worse the problem becomes.
Personally I do not see Trump as having enough time to drain the swamp since he is battling those who have no term limits. I voted for him and wish him well but who will replace him?
Whatever happens, know this much. Unless the problem is understood and defined, it will never be solved. Solutions may vary and the only constant is change.
Happy Thanksgiving
I learned something about 20+ years ago, If a militia is formed, and you want to keep a low profile, which you should at all costs. Never wear military uniforms for training, A colorful ribbon will do, or a similar hat.
NEVER, talk to a news noisy or bring attention to yourself to attract their attention.
If you form groups, keep them no larger than five or six, and form alliances between trusted known other groups, and if you must band together do it for short times only, and keep interaction to a minimum. If a group gets more than five or six, split and form two more.
Pull together only when needed, Keep your communications simple. Radios, are great, but today a radio can be DF’ed very quickly, Change frequencies, and call signs daily, Be careful not to use frequencies that are used by other services. Or if you do use their services or their repeaters, unless as an intrusion to the other service for just a few minutes. Use digital modes if possible keeping messages short, similar to a burst transmission. learn different forms of codes and cyphers. NEVER use a one time pad more than once. Book codes, I would not recommend using Jim’s book Patriots as a book code. Everyone who reads this blog has read it, and it would be the first one an enemy would check.
blessing to all
The United States is too large and diverse to ever be fully occupy or totally subdued. It would be a conflict spanning decades. Whoever has the greatest determination would win in the end. Precisely the reason we lost in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., and etc.
The last elections told us of our coming conflict. In case you didn’t notice – it is rural against urban. Our real enemy is not over there, but here in our liberal cities. Sure they have the numbers, but they can’t feed themselves! Read Atlas Shrugged for a game plan.
That is the most thoughtful comment I have read regarding replies to this article. Do not join anything. Go gray. Trust only those you know thoroughly. Plan what you feel you have to do. And, shut up! The less ANYONE knows of your thoughts or actions, the better off you will be.
Watch Star Wars for the game plan. A giant political machine (tyranny) has defenses (courts, lawmakers, storm troopers,) geared to defend an attack by equivalent entities (political opponents) but cannot be secure against a million individual assassinations by a cell of one, two, or three in an (un) Civil War.
Whatever we are going to do, we need to get it right the first time…
There are hundreds of millions who died in the twentieth century thinking that things were under control and they could handle the youth of the Chinese Communist Party (80M), the Soviet Union (62M), Nazi Germany (21M), and other bloody regimes. Governments love to keep lists, so when the Democide starts, they will murder anyone who disagrees with them. There will be no jail or pacification, only death.
There is no place to run if we fail.
We have a U.S. Congressman, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, threatening nuclear warfare, mass destruction against those that disagree, I’m sure he didn’t come up with it himself, so it is probably being discussed in various circles, his advisors, the DNC, and his contributors…
So, the opposition is definitely thinking about the coming troubles…
Borrowing from H.G. Wells, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our country with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us.
Everyone has to walk out the front door sometime. Drive down the street. Our guns help remind the people who think they are in charge, that it is a temporary thing. That they answer to the people around them. Doing what is right and treating people as you want to be treated is what many need to remember.
just a thought here…..in all the major military campaigns fought by nation/states, their armies fly or sail far far away and set up operations in a foreign land. Their families are safe at home. In our current situation, that is not true. Same deal with the elite that would send trouble to our doors. They live down the street, next door, or just across town. They shop in the same stores we do, send their kids to the same schools, attend the same churches. The people don’t have to defeat huge armies in detail…..just the few idiots that are causing the problem.
That commander? He lives HERE. That politician pledging war against his opposition? Uh….he’s right in your neighborhood….not 10,000 miles away in a well-guarded bunker.
The mass media has huge offices….not on the other side of the globe, but are readily accessible…do they really think they are going to operate business as usual during a civil war?
The idiots of the Left should take note of this before they shake the tree. We have. So let’s all get along and forget this fantasy of a communist USA.
Conservatives today have the same problem they did during the run up to the Civil War, they are full of bluster but they are thinking in terms of years and election cycles but the the liberals and in particular their muslim allies are thinkinking in decades and generations. A local conservative radio host has interviewing an imam from the muslim outreach center (training camp) he asked him if it was the intention of muslims to make sharia the law of the land and how would they do that, his answer was “When sun come up on new day it not rise all at once, it come up little bit, little bit, little bit, then before it realized… it new day.”
We’re still playing checkers while these people are playing chess. we talk about how many times we’ve gone to war to fight islam since the Crusades but they’re still fighting the first war against us, they will never quit until we are gone.
If that sounds off track it’s because you don’t get that the dems and liberals are just a pawn in the long game of the muslims. The dems and libs love them and crave their votes but islam calls for their deaths for the values they espouse.
Good article as it brings up that hi-tech is not always very effective against low-tech adversaries.
Hi-tech is also a double-edged sword as it works one way for the major player (governments) and it also works for the minor players (resistance groups) as has been seen over the years in dealing with terrorist groups.
Where there is a will, there is a way.