learningaboutCI wrote:My gut reaction is that an insurgency "wins" when the press is brought to bear on their side. Otherwise, no. Image and perception strike me as fundamental to outcomes. Not to mention starts! In other words, if the Jews want the "insurgency" to "win", then that's what the papers will gradually work toward.
In accordance with what I perceive Brother Bill's wishes to be, I will keep this as vague as possible, but I will give a few hypothetical scenarios for folks to consider.
The quotation I've copied from learningaboutCI is of no small significance.
As a former Marine Corps rifleman, I have personal struggles with some of Yahweh's promises in the law about military operations. I will never understand why He allowed the Third Reich to fall to the antichrist international talmudic jews, who were in control of the Allied nations and of course the USSR. Some will chalk it up to God's timing. Personally, I have a very difficult time buying that.
I will also never understand why God allowed old Saxon England to lose the war against the Normans in 1066. The Norman dynasty was in bed with the jewish moneychangers, and the English were actually keeping Yahweh's law in a national setting. Why the Normans were permitted to be victors when England was a very righteous and Christian society perplexes me when I read the passages about Yahweh guaranteeing victory to those who are obedient to the law. Here are two cases where the law did not produce the results that we are told.
The only thing I can surmise is that much of the divine law must be understood in terms of its practicality. We must understand it as it would take place in real life, not on some theoretical level, then we just expect something magical... or miraculous... to happen without our serious involvement. For instance... God told Israel to take the land, but to spy it out first. That implies personal initiative. The laws of Yahweh are, in my opinion, the practicality of probability. Somewhere in between understanding the law theoretically, having the correct data, intelligence, and insight, our activity is required. In so doing we must seek to appropriate the promises of God.
Ultimately, dominion is the responsibility (or liability) of our Israel kindred. So long as we do not accept that, we will face the problems associated with giving it over to antichrists.
So to the OP's question. Is it possible that an insurgency can fight off a conventional army? That depends upon every factor in the equation. There is no simple 2 + 2 = 4 when we discuss this issue. The equation cannot be simplified. It's more like a polynomial with unknown variables and unrelated mathematical terms.
I know that many among our ranks will disagree with me on this point, but I can tell you that I still have infrequent contact with members of the Armed Services and I know how most of them feel about our government. One particular friend of mine talks about his reserve drill weekends... where all they do is sit around and talk about what they plan on doing if martial law were ever declared. Based upon the things I hear, I am highly suspicious that the military bases would be looted before any career General could carry out a massive search and seizure or other kind of martial law operation in a neighborhood near you. I have met commissioned officer pilots who said they would steal their assigned aircraft lol!!
Factor this, there are more members of the United States military now who are no longer serving than there are who are serving. Most of them are very cynical about the Global War on Terror, and a good bunch of them know that 9/11 was a set up. Most of these veterans, if they served in the last 10 years, participated in at least two hostile zone deployments where often times they were sitting ducks. We learned a lot from our enemies. There are people all over our country now who know how to make weapons catastrophic enough to knock out tanks from non-traditional components like the Iraqi/Afghani insurgents do. The elite are often their own worst enemy. They often make decisions that come back to bite them in the ass later. They basically trained United States service members (again, who are mostly now civilians) how to defeat a bigger, more equipped occupational force.
Add to that the fact that there are more honest and justice-minded people who hate the United States government today than at any time in our history, and they have every right to be outraged.
Some will point to Hurricane Katrina and say, "See, the military confiscated weapons!!! They'll do it!!! They'll do it!!!" But I can say with assurance that this was an isolated incident, and it went over like a fart in church with the American public. It has also been a massive talking point among enlisted troops.
I believe Katrina was a testing grounds of sort to see whether or not U.S. troops would obey weapons confiscation orders... however, the elite have sort of forgotten that with the advent of the world wide web, it is much easier for there to be serious exposure on issues such as this, and I sense very strongly that our troops will not abide this kind of order again.
Let's look at two scenarios, which we will call A and B.
(A) Defensive posture - The powers that be decide to initiate a martial law order of some sort. What I hear about much in the patriot movement, truth-movement, conspiracy theory movements, etc... most of what I hear is idle talk about defensive posture, "If they come for my guns... blah blah blah." While I believe that this would be a crucial line in the sand (just like Lexington Green), the elite have us right where they want us, and for them to actually move to that point now wouldn't really serve a purpose and would demonstrate insanity. I don't think they are insane. I think they are wicked.
So right out of the gate, I believe that scenario (A) is highly improbable. However, if it were to occur, toe to toe, I believe that the defection in the ranks of military personnel and the length of time that it would take a sizable military force to pacify and disarm the American public would be too long and too many things can go wrong. Here are three sub-points for your consideration:
1.) On the front end, most people don't realize this, but on military bases, the personnel are NOT armed. All munitions are withdrawn from a supply depot on the base somewhere and that is generally one single location per base. Now, consider what I've told you about how many troops feel negatively about martial law. Consider that there are people currently serving for NO OTHER REASON than to be a monkeywrench in a plan if something were to be unveiled (which I don't think is really happening). It wouldn't take a lot of motivation to completely interrupt the ability of an entire divisional unit to be without sufficient ammunition.
2.) In the middle of it, even if a sizeable unit were deployed, there will be internal problems that troops refuse to fire on Americans or confiscate weapons.
3.) On the back end, the time to successfully deploy will be subverted by our modern forms of instant communication. That unit is going to have members texting, sending out information about the unit's location and destination right on their blogs. It wouldn't take a serious effort for a group of local citizens to meet with the local police/sheriff and declare their intent and demand their support. The local citizens know where these cops and local politicans live. Should they placate and give in to the occupational force's whims, they are going to have serious ramifications after that occupational force leaves.
I just don't see it happening from a defensive point of view.
Let's consider scenario (B), the offensive posture. The biggest problem I would see in an insurgent force attempting to thwart U.S. government control is just exactly what learningaboutCI stated... the media and perception. There is a public relations proverb that states: "Feelings are facts." Identity Christians know this all too well. You can't get through to some people. I don't think that most Americans are capable of understanding what you would be doing if you began eliminating targets. On top of that, we could take a poll right now and ask 100 different people what the best way to mount an offensive measure would be, and we would have at least 30 different opinions on this.
Insurgency is an invisible offense. It is the act of carrying out paramilitary operations against an enemy. Psychological warfare is a huge part of this. Most of the people in standard anti-government movements are not offensive-minded by nature. They are sheep who want the wolves to stop eating them. In an offensive situation, you become the hunter, and most of our people, including myself, feel very uncomfortable in that role.
You cannot underestimate the degree to which the establishment will respond to offensive moves. They will most likely not respond immediately in a forceful way, though they would speak with a lot of intent. Most offensive groups are idiots, I mean... seriously, which is why I avoid such people like the plague. They are very dumb and they are very poorly organized, and they most often wind up in jail or some kind of mental ward.
The other problem is that if you actually know who is control of the establishment, you know that they are masters at the dialectic. They can spin anything you do in their media and make people believe anything they want them to believe. It would take a very, very long time to have any kind of offensive success. You can pretty much take the Turner Diaries and chuck them to the wind. It could not happen like that. Subversion, agents provocateur, co-agitators, moles, etc... There would have to be a very small inner group with a funding source that could never be made known. Essentially, an offensive-minded insurgency would have to start with a secret society and they would have to act like jews to get anything done, and that would never happen among our Israelite folks for two reasons. 1.) We're not jews. 2.) We can't keep our stupid mouths shut about anything we know. Do you know how most people are caught by government agencies? They can't keep their mouths shut. They get away with something but then they tell their wife, and it leaks out.
I don't mean to be hard on our womenfolk, but Yahweh didn't design our sisters, wives, mothers, and daughters to be information retention devices. Women LOVE gossip, and sadly, we men LOVE to give them the ammunition with which to go gossiping.
Several years ago, I was working in a business where I unfortunately had to be around some jews. I noticed something very interesting about them... this was even before I was CI. I noticed that they don't talk business with their families. The men just make small talk with their women. They talk about pop-culture or lighter subjects. They don't sit and talk about how they are going to rip off the next corporation and drop a business deal and write it off as someone else's problem. It's just another day at the office for them.
My point is, the lesson we can learn here... even though CI is not a covert paramilitary operation, I don't think it is wise for us to include our women in certain discussions. Women are not our partners, they are our assistants (helpmeets), and that means not bringing them in for a "board of directors" meeting.
This cannot happen at this time in America with ANY degree of success. The media is the control mechanism that prevents that.
