I think the folks who are predicting Balkanization are 100% dead-on. The pockets of cohesive groups of people around the country who could come together and shut this down...most of what I hear from them when they will speak openly is..."Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new."
"Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new."
Theres actually another reason for that.
Putting together a group large enough to do anything isn't trivial. And if you do, you're immediately in a position thats essentially fighting uphill if you do anything at all that the state defines as verboten, such as actual combat. So the groups that
managed to form despite all other factors that would typically disrupt organizing
are capable of things that directly hurt the occupation
ask a simple set of questions:
all things being equal, if they chose to go outside 'the rules' set by the enemy
do they stand a chance?
if they don't stand a chance at their given strength, and if they were determined to engage the occupation, what is the risk vs. chance of success if they pursued growth before action?
All that make it to step three, must conclude, that the chances of success, at every step are very minimal, even for the capable groups with the right circumstances, experience, and people.
Their conclusion will always be "let it burn, we'll survive either way."
However that doesn't rule out another possible scenario
many of these groups form
some catalyzing series of events or national situation develops to 'activate' them
there is a unifying network to bring them into the fold.
In fact if I were the occupation, I'd basically want to trigger that exact scenario, only far too early for the american people and citizens of western nations to develop any sort of momentum that might be a threat to begin with. Sort of like lancing and disinfecting a wound before it becomes gangrene.
Call it the "failed ignition" model of american civil war. If you're the occupation, you don't want a full conflagration. You want 'brush fires' that never become anything more than localized wildfires. Enough to look like the real deal, but not enough to go anywhere. Draw in all the dead wood (dissidents), and clear it out. Balancing the size, scale, and scope would be important not only to prevent losing control and kicking off something real, but because most of us in the american public are now keenly aware, even the average guy, when something seems rotten, and those same members of the public will be right quick to disengage before even showing up if they think the wind is blowing the wrong way, and the entire scenario isn't organic. The public has the scent of blood so to speak, and won't be easily fooled into something of this scope, least of all because events like J6 took a small coalition of america and brought the awareness to the entirety of america. What awareness? That national events and national conversations are *wholly artificial, that almost no one that appears on television can be trusted, that almost anyone who has nay clout is to be, at the least, if not reviled, mistrusted by default. The public understands now, they get it, that america runs on propaganda so pervasive, that we're now no better than soviet russia's pravda. No one who gets any air time at all is legit, and anyone who isn't immediately permabanned or silenced from social media isn't trustworthy, no matter how many times they claim they were 'censored and then let back on with a warning'. That legitimizing mechanism doesn't work anymore.
And so, for there to be a large scale conflict, I think it will either have to happen seemingly out-of-the-blue, or started by the occupation itself.
No groups are going to start it. And if the DC junta decide to kick it off, they'll kick it off earlier than any organic uprising. And I'm pretty sure they'll fuck it up, because american enemies will use the opportunity to attack american infrastructure, both through cyber and kinetic methods, while pushing the national sentiment to boiling so DC loses control of its little 'civil war' shitshow.
They are competent. But barely.
The real problem is that our international opposition is competent, significantly, compared to the u.s. and western occupation governments.
I don't expect much in the way of outright head-to-head resistance ever if I'm honest. And maybe, sort of as you say, that's the method of last resort anyway. I would not be at all surprised to start seeing sabotage of federally-managed infrastructure and guerilla tactics. I mean...it has certainly worked for "our enemies" in the last few conflicts with the US mil.
What is this? Fifth Generation War now? Sixth? What is the modern equivalent of the Colonists refusing to march row-and-column into battle and instead hide behind trees and pot shot? Whatever that looks like for the current generation...
I don't expect much in the way of outright head-to-head resistance ever if I'm honest. And maybe, sort of as you say, that's the method of last resort anyway.
You summarize better than I do. In short, the groups that are undetected, organized, and experienced, see conflict as the last resort, thats my conclusion anyway. I think there may be sizeable contingents out there somewhere, that are capable of all the occupation's useful idiots in the fbi are afraid of, but I don't think they're active. I think they're stockpiling, training, creating safehouses, building their logistics, same as any competent resistance network would ahead of a fight. But obviously they're not fighting, otherwise we'd see a lot more damage. That doesn't rule out that we haven't already seen action in the news, just misinterpreted it.
For example, a cursory read of the environment says neither the russians nor the chinese are going to directly aid resistance forces. Too much risk. Like others have said, they'd mainly focus on providing intelligence and coordination. And I think that is an accurate assessment of their mode of operation right now, put it in the 80-90% confidence interval.
Based on that we can say for example that the texas plant explosions and derailments for example, if not the state committing attacks, then it was definitely some form of radicals.
That of course doesn't rule out accident, but from everything I saw, I doubt it.
My assessment is that
we are already in a low grade civil conflict
there has already been sabotage by some groups, both aligned on the left, and broader larger attacks committed by the right
there is a sizeable non-"lone wolf" contingent of militia-like groups the federal occupation is completely and entirely unaware of. They would be foolish to operate from any other premise.
...most of what I hear from them when they will speak openly is..."Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new."
They better have a back-up plan in case the Feds try to WACO them before the eventual collapse.
When I talk of pockets I'm talking about thousands of people.
(post is archived)