“First of all I’d like to thank you for the link to the website Gurrillamerica. Looks like it has some really good reading I’m going to enjoy.”

You’re welcome.

“If the insurgents took first strike I think you’re right that they would be almost completely screwed unless some kind of disruptive technology was used, something wild and unpredictable and probably unrealistic like Cylons. In other words, pretty much no.”

So we have some common grounds of agreement; good. And you find a “disruptive technology” miracle unrealistic too.

“But if USG took first strike against American citizens. Perhaps they lock up a bunch of conservative leaders for no good obvious reason and then people protest the arrests and the protesters get slaughtered by the police. Of if that’s not a good enough example for you, imagine some kind of action that is openly abusive and most people would see as criminal.”

Well, first, the Cathedral is a master at frog-boiling; they are very good an pushing as far as they can without providing this sort of open abuse. Secondly, I think you underestimate how much the American people can be made to tolerate.

I’m reminded of a passage from Adam Smith on taxes: “Capitation taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary. The state of a man’s fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquisition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be guessed at.” (emphasis added)

And yet, Americans dutifully submit their 1040’s to the IRS annually. People can be made to tolerate much more than many would think. In fact, consider the level of material comforts the people have; the panem et circenses of EBT, video games, and internet porn. Also recall that it is mainly young men that fight in any rebellion (see this on the ages of the Founding Fathers); look at American youth. How many are overweight? On Ritalin or Prozac? In fact, consider all the reasons Tyler Cowen gives in his “Average is Over” for why the bean-eating favela-dwelling masses won’t revolt against the 15% elite. Plus, there’s the demographic shifts from immigration, sub-replacement fertility, and dysgenic breeding. I also know quite a few people to whom everything said on MSNBC is the absolute, unquestionable Truth? When the Media patiently “explain” why the government was forced to commit the outrage to “protect decent Americans” from those “evil, racist, right-wing militia Timothy McVeigh domestic terrorists,” how many will swallow it hook, line, and sinker?

And remember, we’re talking about an action so overt that sizable numbers of young Americans are not simply outraged, not outraged enough to protest, but outraged enough to risk torture and death, not just for themselves but for their friends and family, to fight against it. I’m convinced that this threshold is so high (and rising, due to demographics) that the Cathedral can continue to push things Leftward while remaining safely below it.

“America’s military could very well split and become that “outside help” to a civilian uprising.”

I must again recommend Krishnan’s book. You should read how much specialist technical work goes into maintaining modern weapons of war, and how dependent the military is on outside contractors to provide it. If a portion of the military splits off to join the rebellion, and takes their guns, tanks and fighter jets with them, how long will those last before they run out of ammunition, or fall into disrepair? Unless the whole complex logistics chain defects to the revolt as well, the breakaway faction won’t last very long.

Plus, the question of such a split is how many of the officers would break away, especially the upper levels. Consider how much the Cathedral has politicized the upper ranks, and even the middle ranks. Which of our colonels could be a Pinochet?

“As a friend of mine who works at the Pentagon put it “if Bush had gone for a third term or tried to declare himself president for life he would be forceably removed”.”

He said that about Bush, but how many would say that about Obama, or would dat be raycis’. And, again, they’re very unlikely to do something that blatant. Instead, the eight years of Obama will be followed by eight years of Hillary, then eight years of America’s first Latino/Latina president, or America’s first gay or lesbian president (or a lesbian Latina president?), possibly followed by America’s first transsexual president, etc., all Democrats. And besides, isn’t part of the whole Cathedral analysis of government the fact that the President, and elected officials in general, don’t have nearly as much power as people think?

“Again, if an insurgency started up tomorrow probably no one. But if it started because USG did something openly criminal you’d have more than the Tea Party side against USG.”

Again, I question the “more than the Tea Party” part, at least with regards to those willing to risk everything.

“NSA and DHS aren’t the omniscient gods you seem to think they are.”

They don’t have to be omniscient, they just have to be good enough to take out enough potential leadership pour encourager les autres, and that’s what the DHS is concentrating on. In fact, a simmering insurgency rendered ineffective by lack of experienced leadership would likely serve the Cathedral’s interests, since the occasional Oklahoma City or Austin, TX would be all the excuse they’d need to go after their enemies at an intensity they’d never be able to do normally, in the name of fighting “domestic terror.”

And remember, it’s the same youth that would make up an insurrection that are posting their every stray thought on Twitter, and abandoning any privacy in trade for Facebook. Also, see again “Average is Over”.

“Even that would be way too much firepower that would cause civilian deaths.”

Why should that matter? As long as it’s not too severe, any “regrettable collateral damage” can be spun as entirely the fault of the “evil racists using innocent civilians as human shields”. Think of everything Republicans or Israel says about the deaths of Palestinian civilians; that’s the sort of things that will be used. And again, how many will ultimately listen to the relentless media blitz?

“This is actually a great example of the kind of criminal action USG could take that would either split the military or have them wholly side with the civilians.”

Again, I’m not so confident in that. Consider to how many people out there the massive incidence of prison rape is naught but a punchline. As long as the PTB can convince enough people that they’re only doing it to “bad people who have it coming”, and terrify enough of the rest into compliance for fear of that fate, it can work.

Consider also the increasing militarization of the police, and see this, this and this. And remember that the Department of Education and the EPA both have SWAT teams now, as do many other Federal agencies.

To sum up, we agree that the people cannot win if they start the violence; I say that the Cathedral will not provide sufficient casus belli; at least not until after demographic change has made potential rebels too few in number to hope of winning (if they aren’t already).

Who would provide that outside aid to an American insurgency? Would Putin arm the Alaskan Independence Party? Will Texas militias get Chinese advisors? The Saudis? I don’t see any obvious candidates.

It would really depend on what started an insurgency in America. If the insurgents took first strike I think you’re right that they would be almost completely screwed unless some kind of disruptive technology was used, something wild and unpredictable and probably unrealistic like Cylons. In other words, pretty much no.

But if USG took first strike against American citizens. Perhaps they lock up a bunch of conservative leaders for no good obvious reason and then people protest the arrests and the protesters get slaughtered by the police. Of if that’s not a good enough example for you, imagine some kind of action that is openly abusive and most people would see as criminal. In other words something that shocks the conscious. VXXC makes a good point about the military: America’s military could very well split and become that “outside help” to a civilian uprising. Soldiers are not robots, if ordered to fire on a peaceful crowd there’s a good chance they would disobey that order. Or even if individual soldiers did obey there would be a lot more who would not approve. As a friend of mine who works at the Pentagon put it “if Bush had gone for a third term or tried to declare himself president for life he would be forceably removed”.

And for the “conciliation” faction, who in our government would form that body. What member of the elite would offer “appeasement”, when that appeasement means the diminishment or overthrow of that same elite?

Again, if an insurgency started up tomorrow probably no one. But if it started because USG did something openly criminal you’d have more than the Tea Party side against USG.

“…insurgents don’t openly identify themselves and there is no master list of who they are.”

That’s what NSA and DHS surveillance is for.

NSA and DHS aren’t the omniscient gods you seem to think they are.

“USG isn’t going to carpet bomb its own cities and it won’t roll tanks on suburbs.”

To quote Obama, “Yes, we can.” And besides, that’s what smart bombs and Predator drones are for.

Even that would be way too much firepower that would cause civilian deaths.

the armies of the french revolution provide an example of successful brutality at home: they killed indiscriminately to suppress the revolt in the vendée region in the 1790s. as one republican general wrote, “i have not a single prisoner to reproach myself with. i exterminated them all.”

This is actually a great example of the kind of criminal action USG could take that would either split the military or have them wholly side with the civilians.

The Guerrilla Myth:
“But if $1,000 walks and talks in your community, it will walk and talk for a federal regime or foreign occupation. Popular support is the bedrock for any resistance movement and movements without popular support aren’t movements at all.”

Measuring Progress:
“At any rate, all this is giving me problems trying to figure out how to accomplish military intelligence tasks without the military and its billion dollar budgets, against the potential threats which have deeper pockets, near-infinite reach, and/or greater anonymity than the lungee-wearing dudes in Southwest Asia.”

FARC – Lessons Learned:
“Encryption may not be as strong as we think. I’m not a cryptologist but we know that encrypted communications have been and continue to be decrypted by NSA technology. Speaker beware.”

ANC – Lessons Learned:
“Insurgencies and guerrilla movements, we know, are often defeated. The chances of success are abysmally low. In fact, it’s a lot more probable that a second American Revolution would be defeated in a week than be successful in that short period.”

28DEC13 EXSUM
“Of course, towns the size of 100,000 and smaller are prime territory for the Baghdad neighborhood-style of counterinsurgency that we saw throughout the mid-2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan. So if you expect a township rebellion, expect a troop ‘on every corner’, so to speak.”

01JAN14 EXSUM:
“Perhaps the biggest news story of the week identified an NSA program called Tailored Access Operations (TAO), through which NSA is able to intercept computer packages through the mail and install spy software before delivery. According to Der Spiegel, hardware intercepts consisted of its “most productive operations”. The NSA TAO mission is “getting the ungettable”, which includes other various forms of surreptitious collection.”

“The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that advances in biometric technology now allow scientists to identify individuals based on their buttocks (with 98% accuracy), heartbeat patterns, position of veins in your fingers, and the shapes of your ears.”

07JAN14 EXSUM:
“The article goes on to say that many of these “non-lethal” (actually less lethal) systems were never even used in the Iraq or Afghan theaters, despite being specifically designed to deal with unruly crowds. Considering the US Goverment’s (USG) seemingly increasing levels of preparedness for civil unrest, one indicator and warning we can’t overlook is the manufacture and distribution of these systems to local law enforcement. As if MRAPs, MATVs, and Bearcat armored vehicles weren’t obvious enough, the introduction of less lethal weapons would mark a significant shift in expectations of future unrest.”

“Admiral McRaven – yes, the US SOCOM commander – is challenging a real life Iron Man suit to be engineered by the defense industry. Just like many military weapons and vehicles end up in arsenal of law enforcement, RoboCop could be your children’s reality.”

On insurgencies and guerrilla warfare, I’d point to Max Boot’s Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present, and his summary WSJ article “The Guerrilla Myth.

From the latter:

But even tribal peoples such as the Turks, Arabs and Mongols, who employed guerrilla tactics in their rise to power, turned to conventional armies to safeguard their hard-won empires. Their experience suggests that few people have ever chosen guerrilla warfare voluntarily; it is the tactic of last resort for those too weak to create regular armies. Likewise, terrorism is the tactic of last resort for those too weak to create guerrilla forces.

Since 1945, opinion has swung too far toward considering guerrilla movements invincible. This is largely because of the success enjoyed by a handful of rebels such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro. But focusing on their exploits distracts from the ignominious end suffered by most insurgents, including Castro’s celebrated protégé, Che Guevara, who was killed by Bolivian Rangers in 1967.

In reality, though guerrillas have often been able to fight for years and inflict great losses on their enemies, they have seldom achieved their objectives. Terrorists have been even less successful.

According to a database that I have compiled, out of 443 insurgencies since 1775, insurgents succeeded in 25.2% of the concluded wars while incumbents prevailed in 63.8%. The rest were draws.

This lack of historical success flies in the face of the widespread deification of guerrillas such as Guevara. Since 1945, the win rate for insurgents has indeed gone up, to 39.6%. But counter-insurgency campaigns still won 51.1% of post-1945 wars. And those figures overstate insurgents’ odds of success because many rebel groups that are still in the field, such as the Kachin separatists in Myanmar, have scant chance of success. If ongoing uprisings are judged as failures, the win rate for insurgents would go down to 23.2% in the post-1945 period, while the counter-insurgents’ winning percentage would rise to 66.1%.

Boot also pointed out that while torture, terror and brutality by counter-insurgent powers fails in foreign lands, it does work at home:

The armies of the French Revolution provide an example of successful brutality at home: They killed indiscriminately to suppress the revolt in the Vendée region in the 1790s. As one republican general wrote, “I have not a single prisoner to reproach myself with. I exterminated them all.”

.

Or check out this: “Study: Insurgencies like Iraq’s usually fail in 10 years“:

“For the United States, the good news is that rebels lose more often than they win. Chances for stopping an insurgency improve after 10 years, the study shows.”

and

“Not all insurgencies are quagmires, the report shows. Insurgents only win in 41% of the conflicts in the database, Lawrence said.”

The successful insurgencies, again the minority, have pretty much always had two things aiding them: (1) significant foreign support for the insurgents, and (2) a sympathetic “appeasement” faction within the counter-insurgent government.

From Boot’s book:

By the mid-1970s, following the American defeat in Vietnam, it was easy for an informed observer to believe that it was virtually impossible for a conventional army to defeat an unconventional foe. Nothing could be further from the truth; as our survey should have already shown, the odds remain stacked against those who adopt guerrilla or terrorist tactics. For guerrillas to triumph, they usually require outside assistance, along with a major lack of acumen or will on the part of the government under siege.

On point (1), the American Revolution had the French, Lafayette and Rochambeau, and others like von Steuben and Pulaski. Mao had the Soviets. The Vietnamese had China. And so on.

And for point (2), Moldbug has said quite a bit on this:

From here:

As Colonel Stedman says, the rebels could and should have been crushed easily. In a fair fight, their real chances against the British military were slim to none. As the Union later found, suppressing guerrilla warfare, even in the wilds of North America, is not difficult given sufficient energy. Britain failed because it lacked that crucial ingredient in every war: the will to win.

Britain in the Revolution was politically divided. Large numbers of mainstream political figures – most famously, both Pitt and Burke – sympathized with the Americans. Moreover, although the tea outrage finally created a nominal consensus for a military response, and finally made it imprudent for a British politician to openly urge surrender, a new lobby developed which urged conciliation, conciliation, and more conciliation.

Moldbug again:

Why does left-wing terrorism work, and right-wing terrorism not? As Carl Schmitt explained in Theory of the Partisan, terrorist, guerrilla or partisan warfare is never effective on its own. While an effective military strategy, it is only effective as one fork of a pincer attack. The terrorist succeeds when, and only when, he is allied to what Schmitt called an interested third party – either a military or political force.

Left-wing terrorism succeeds as the violent arm of a political assault that would probably be overwhelming in any case. In every case, the terrorist plays Mutt in a Mutt-and-Jeff act. Right-wing terrorism in the modern world is cargo-cult terrorism: Mutt without Jeff. Indeed, in historical cases where right-wing terrorism has been successful, in every case we see it aligned with powerful forces within the state. Right-wing terrorism worked in Weimar Germany, for instance, or prewar Japan, because it aligned with fascist conspiracies in the security forces. Somehow I don’t see a lot of that in 2011 Norway.

Thus, Islamic terrorism is productive, because it results in increasing communal deference to the Islamic community and its progressive allies. Fascist terrorism is counterproductive, because it results in increasing communal intolerance toward the fascist community – which of course has no conservative allies.

Rather, the community – whose information source consists almost exclusively of progressive organs – adopts a monist approach, ascribing guilt by association to everyone even remotely resembling a fascist. Ie, everyone to the right of Mitt Romney. Since the monist response is the natural response, it is not at all difficult to orchestrate. The story writes itself.

And again:

The even more bizarre gladiatorial bloodbath of Vietnam, in which it was almost impossible to recognize anything resembling a military strategy or objective, was so hard for Plainlanders to understand that it actually wound up as a political victory for the ultra-loyalist radicals, now recognizable as our modern-day “blue-state” Coasters. Vietnam was so confusing that after the Pentagon had won a complete military victory over the South Vietnamese insurgents, State prevailed by simply capturing Congress and imposing a surprise arms embargo on the corrupt, reactionary leaders of South Vietnam, treating them much as it had treated Chiang. The resulting North Vietnamese invasion surely reminded a few diplomatic silverbacks of the good old Popular Front days, when the Red Army rode into Poland on Plainland-made Jeeps.

Who would provide that outside aid to an American insurgency? Would Putin arm the Alaskan Independence Party? Will Texas militias get Chinese advisors? The Saudis? I don’t see any obvious candidates.

And for the “conciliation” faction, who in our government would form that body. What member of the elite would offer “appeasement”, when that appeasement means the diminishment or overthrow of that same elite?

So, we clearly lack the “interested third parties” needed.

“…insurgents don’t openly identify themselves and there is no master list of who they are.”

That’s what NSA and DHS surveillance is for.

“USG isn’t going to carpet bomb its own cities and it won’t roll tanks on suburbs.”

To quote Obama, “Yes, we can.” And besides, that’s what smart bombs and Predator drones are for.

Oh hell there’s a whole TED talk on successful insurgencies.

Then what do you mean by “fight”? You don’t mean fighting in the realm of ideas, since, as you note, they are immune to reason (and they control all the megaphones, and have mastered the art of propaganda like no other). You can’t mean financially, since all we’ve got are a few libertarians like Thiel who say positive things about seasteading and the like, but never put their money where their mouth is.

“Only because they fear us…”

You are completely wrong here. They do not fear us. There are two major reasons they do not use active methods against us (passive methods of destruction are already in play). One is illustrated by the example of Martin Luther’s infamous anti-semitism. He actually began his career rather philo-semitic… because he believed that it was the corruption he identified in the Church that was keeping Jews Jewish, and that once his reforms were adopted, they would begin converting to Christianity. It was only after repeated failed attempts to convert the Jews disabused him of this notion of mass conversion that he began his firy denunciations. The modern Left is the same; their doctrine and dogma requires them to make every attempt to convert us first; we just haven’t had enough “diversity” programs or “gay pride” parades, but we’ll see the light eventually, they say. Only when they are sufficienty convinced we are incorrigible will the Cathedral switch from “convert the heathen” to “kill the infidel” (the non-believer can never be allowed to persist in his error, but must be converted or destroyed; thus, Exit remains forbidden). However, recent examples like Oprah and Solomon Wong indicate that the transition may have begun.

The second reason is, as you note, their aversion to open force and violence; they prefer more feminine, passive agressive tactics. However, this doesn’t mean they won’t use violence; even as they claim “violence never solved anything,” they’ll use it to “spread democracy” all over the world. They are never the ones to initiate force; no, they wait for the other guy to “cross the red line,” as it were; but when we does…

“You seem to be counseling despair and prayer, only Christ can deliver us.”

Mostly wrong, since I’m a metaphysical naturalist; prayer is useless.

“Christ never…not once…delivered anyone including himself in this world.”

I agree.

“There are gaping holes in your argument blown apart by History again and again.”

Weren’t you the one who said “It was never the local free assemblies of peasants challenged the Castle and Crown and won anything, ever.” So when are these examples in History, other than those periods when weapons technology favored quantity over quality?

“Our Prog overlords neither work, manufacture, or especially FIGHT. They can neither produce the arms nor wield them.”

No, but they are very good at indoctrinating, propagandizing, persuading, and commanding those that do.

“They’d also be breaking the most sacred Oaths.”

You mean defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? But who decides which is the enemy of the constitution and which is the upholder? Gays in the military, women in the military, murderous Muslims promoted because “diversity”, gay “marriages” in the West Point chapel; “diversity training”, “sexual harrasment” seminars; and the general behavior of the Obama Administration. And yet, has there been any pushback by our military? Any protests or resignations? If our current government is not upholding the Constitution, doesn’t that make it a domestic enemy? Don’t those sacred oaths then compel our armed forces to remove the usurpers and restore Constitutional governance? And yet, not one soldier or sailor or commander has done so. Does this not indicate that despite all the above, despite how insane and hostile our elite is, our military is solidly convinced that our elites are legitimate and Constitutional. And wouldn’t that mean that any who would fight against, undemocratically secede from, or otherwise resist the lawful authority of that Constitutional government be the domestic enemy which the Oath obligates our armed forces to fight and defeat, even if they be kith and kin.

And, besides, don’t our public schools and media do a pretty good job of convincing most Americans that the Consitution means whatever five out of nine robed judges say it means? If all the commanding officers and all the media say that “those people” are “domestic terrorists”, a bunch of Timothy McVeighs about to enact more Oklahoma Cities, John Walker Lindhs who are Americans no longer, and who must be stopped, how many will be convinced?

“You seem to be under the impression that military and police are robots”

No, just people trained to follow orders and respect authority, and subjected to the same public school indoctrination and media propaganda as the rest of America.

“the idea that tens of millions of armed men can’t prevail over millions is ludicrous and disproven all through History”

The Siege of Malta? The Battle of Plassey? The Siege of the International Legations? 108 australians defeating 1500-2500 Viet Cong (plus some North Vietnamese) at Long Tan? History is replete with superior weapons and training overcoming large numerical disparities. And need I remind you that the untrained Continental Army kept losing battles until a combination of Darwinian winnowing and the expertise of a gay Prussian aristocrat finally turned it into something effective. And while there are veterans who could provide the needed knowledge and training, the Department of Homeland Security is watching them for just that reason.

But, no, I guess those rebelling peasants who never won just needed to stock up on more pitchforks…

What part of “private forces will not stand a chance in a conflict with modern national armed forces that can utilize heavy weaponry and all sorts of military high-tech” and “war-waging capabilities that, though they might be used only at a terrible cost in American lives, could not be overcome by even the most determined of popular uprisings” are unclear?
See Scott Locklin in Taki’s Magazine,
COL (RET) Kevin Benson and Dr. Jennifer Weber’s “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future“,
Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment, 62 Tennessee Law Review 643-677 (1995). [PDF]: “In reality, however, no insurgents armed only with the sort of personal weapons contemplated by the Second Amendment have prevailed, in a military sense, over any authentically modern army.”

“Unless they’re willing to nuke the country to keep it…”

They are, like a child who breaks his toys rather than have to share them. “If I can’t have it…”

“BTW we’d still probably prevail any post-nuking that doesn’t involve Human extinction.”

Hubris. What if Whites are exterminated but some bits of Africa go unnuked; isn’t that a counterexample. Or what if the survivors on our side are few enough to be massively outnumbered by the third-world hordes? Aren’t you the one claiming that history is full of sheer numbers overwhelming any technological advantage? And prevail over what? Mad Max ruins destroyed beyond hope of repair; the Eternal Amish future? Could victory be any more Pyrrhic?

“There is no weapon they have or could build that we given any rump territory could not match or exceed.”

Cite please. Read more about how much specialized, costly engineering and complex, expensive logistics go into producing and maintaining modern weapons of war. You can’t maintain an F-22 or an Abrams with duck tape and bailing wire. Again, they have more money, and better logistics. Plus, we will never be given any “rump territory”, so the point is moot.

“Your argument is very Progressive – that force never solves anything.”

Actually, I’m arguing against resorting to force because force very definitely solves things. Since superior force lies very much with the Cathedral, should it come to violence, force will solve us.

“Your interface to the realities of war, the American or indeed Western Militaries, and American police seems to be theoretical.”

Well, all the ex-military and ex-police I know (and I know some of both), including a relative who served in the Marines, are all fairly left-leaning, supportive of the Establishment, and very disapproving of this state’s Independence Party.

“History and especially the History of War is full of Victories exactly under the condtions you seem to think preclude it.”

Name them.

“There are places for withdrawing from the world, prayer, fasting. They are called monastaries.”

I’m not interested in “withdrawing from the world”, there’s nothing to pray to, and there are no atheist monastaries.

“So what are you doing here? And who are you trying to convince it’s all hopeless, do nothing?”

Yes to “all hopeless”, no to “do nothing.” I am against attempting violence, since the massive Cathedral retaliation is likely to kill me and my family. Otherwise, act as you will, as your conscience demands. Just stop expecting success. One can choose to act despite it being futile. Albert Camus, with The Myth of Sisyphus, argued that this is the fundamental human condition, finding meaning and purpose in struggles that are always futile.

As Nietzsche said, referring to the myth of Pandora’s Box, “Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.”

I’m not actually counseling War unless it’s in defense of our very existence, which they do covet but dare not yet destroy. Only because they fear us gap teethed and all.
They seem to have a higher opinion of us than say…others here.

There’s some useful stuff in there although misleading. You seem to be counseling despair ..still…at least your consistent. You also recognize that Oligarchal Status Quo means Prog overlords now beyond any check, and that they are evil and insane. Easily the worst ruling class ever as the USSR was certainly ruled more wisely once Stalin had eliminated the Left Communists. Or Stalin took out his Left.

Ye would have us submit to children madder than the Khmer Rouge, just not as good at fighting.

You seem to be counseling despair and prayer, only Christ can deliver us. Christ never…not once…delivered anyone including himself in this world. Constaintine, a string of Holy Roman Emperors, Knights who bowed to the Peace of Christ [Cluny actually]

There are gaping holes in your argument blown apart by History again and again. There are also huge errors about the current situation.

1) Our Prog overlords neither work, manufacture, or especially FIGHT. They can neither produce the arms nor wield them.

2) The People they would have to rely on to do this horrible work [which is in fact nuking the country or some other form of WMD] come from the exact stock that they’d be crushing. They’re own families and blood. This is both the Military and Police. They’d find it quite abhorrent. They’d also be breaking the most sacred Oaths. The Police and Military are fortunately enough almost the last institutions in our society to take Honor seriously.

3) You seem to be under the impression that military and police are robots, they are not.

4) Finally even if the bulk of the police and military were to commit to a course so heinous and abhorrent to them it would be akin to telling them to commit child rape or very close, the idea that tens of millions of armed men can’t prevail over millions is ludicrous and disproven all through History right up to the present day. Unless they’re willing to nuke the country to keep it and again..the people launching the nukes on their own soil are again…M’uricans. BTW we’d still probably prevail any post-nuking that doesn’t involve Human extinction.

5) There is no weapon they have or could build that we given any rump territory could not match or exceed. We.Build.Things.

6) Your argument is very Progressive – that force never solves anything.

7) Your interface to the realities of war, the American or indeed Western Militaries, and American police seems to be theoretical. As are the sources you use. Mine and others is not.

8) History and especially the History of War is full of Victories exactly under the condtions you seem to think preclude it.

9) There are places for withdrawing from the world, prayer, fasting. They are called monastaries. They don’t blog from there.

10) No Reactionary denies reality, history, hierarchy…all of which are are written in Blood.

So what are you doing here? And who are you trying to convince it’s all hopeless, do nothing? Nothing is the default option of man. It requires no research or thought. And it’s usually best accompanied by silence.

Yours in Christ,

VXXC

Sorry, the blockquote tag at the end of the Aristotle quote needs fixed to a /blocktag.