You WILL need a plan when SHTF time arrives!

"SHTF" is a commonly known and used acronym for "shit hits the fan", which, in modern survivalist parlance, refers to the time when the police-power forces of government1 and the citizenry actually start shooting at each other. In other words, when the revolution begins. "WROL" is a survivalist term which means "Without Rule of Law".

Since the debt-as-money oligarchs' duopoly henchman OKenyan and his leftist myrmidons, acolytes, "freebie" addicts, ragtag band of race-hustling vermin, and RINO enablers have decided to "double down" on destroying the U.S. Constitution and disarming the American people, it is important to take at least some care in maintaining 1st Amendment protections for this speech in the face of extreme government1 hostility and propensity for overreaction to the subject of overthrowing the traitorous scum who have overthrown the U.S.Constitution.

So let me state clearly at the outset, even the mere thought of writing this essay is, in and of itself, an ABSTRACT IDEA which is NOT to be construed in any context as any type of threat, whether direct or indirect, whether express or implied, of violence. It is purely political2 speech designed to openly discuss the difficult subject of determining the exact point at which the dominant individuals in the stupid-human pecking order who like to call themselves "government1" become so corrupt and tyrannical that direct violent action by the citizenry is morally justified in opposing the evil. It has always seemed to me that speaking openly of violent revolution is the best way of avoiding it. The maxim is: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (if you want peace, prepare for war).

The Founders set forth their justifications in the Declaration of Independence. This essay is intended to discuss, AS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT, military strategy for a successful revolutionary confrontation with the "redcoats" from the self-owning individual-freedom-loving citizen's point of view.

In America, the U.S. Supreme Court has frequently acknowledged that it was the Founders' clear intent to protect political1 speech above all other types of speech. For example, two important free speech cases which bear on the essay are Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). The case of Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957) holds that "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of government AS ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE is immune from prosecution. Regarding “sedition3”, compare Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) dissent to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court). In the event of government persecution, I would hope a jury would agree that this essay is protected by the 1st Amendment as an intellectual discussion of abstract ideas directly connected to political government.

Having said all that, I will proceed with my discussion of what tactical response I believe is the wisest and (therefore) most effective one for an individual-freedom-loving citizenry to take against an unacceptably tyrannical government which has overwhelmingly powerful standing armies (anathema to the Founders).

To the careful observer, the movie "Michael Collins" will tell you everything you need to know about how to fight a guerrilla war against superior forces. It's a veritable tutorial on the subject. (Rent or buy a copy and study it.) And I'm sure we can all agree that the military and police powers of the government are superior to any local "militia". For anybody who disagrees, just take a look at the military video clips I have posted below and watch what a Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter with a 30mm Hughes M230 Chain Gun, AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and Hydra 70 rockets can do. VERY impressive. Just ask the Iraqis or the Taliban.

If you find yourself in a shootout with government, your strategy and "intel" (intelligence information) have been fatally deficient. If you are an active part of the resistance and the government knows who you are, or especially WHERE you are, you are dead. Just watch the military video clips posted below. NEVER harbor any stupid delusions about how groovy your fire power is compared to that of the government. If they know where you are they WILL kill you.

What government fears most, and what it cannot handle, are ANONYMOUS one-man cells operating independently with none of them knowing what the other cells are planning or doing. That way if the government captures and tortures one fighter, they get nothing other than what they coach the prisoner to say — because he knows no useful information to volunteer about anybody else. An example of the one-man cell are the Islamic suicide bombers, where one person (even children) strap on a dynamite-and-sharpnel-filled vest, walk into a place where it will do the most damage and set it off. "Government" has a hard time controlling anonymous fighters who are willing to die for their cause. That's just a simple self-evident fact of War-101 strategy.

If you watch the video below of James Yeager, you will see him talking tough. That's because he is trying to inspire his fellow patriots to join the active resistance. He probably isn't going to shoot anybody, because the government already knows who he is and could easily kill him any time they saw fit. Anonymous guerilla fighters who are actually going to kill the tyrant's politicians and soldiers don't announce it, they just do it — anonymously, if at all possible. Two people can't keep a secret. Only one can. Accordingly, that means cells should be not more than one to three people, depending on the job that needs doing. There is no way to have a local group of fighters numbering in the dozens without compromising stealth and secrecy.

The bad guys make a big deal out of "assault" rifles and 30-round magazines. That's just stupid Goebblesian propaganda for the consumption of the apathetic masses. Admittedly, it is fun to participate in the gun buying panic, but in reality, the entire war is in your mind and spirit. Just as the IRA attacked the police armory and took their guns in "Michael Collins", any serious fighter can use virtually any type of gun available to ambush a couple of cops and take whatever weapons they have. After all, they wear uniforms and ride around in marked cars. To the serious-minded guerrilla fighter, they are basically just easily identifiable targets, which is why so many constitution-friendly cops say that when the SHTF, they will take off their uniforms and go home.

RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

[JUDGE ANDREW] NAPOLITANO: [You Have] A divine right of arms - Washington Times - "Tyrants cling to power by disarming the people"

Pushing Us Ever Closer to the Edge - The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

What We Must Do when Facing Martial Law - http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com

When gun confiscation begins, ALL politicians must be viewed as enemies of freedom until proven otherwise - Kevin Collins' "Coach Is Right"

Mark Levin: "I Can Barely Contain My Fury At What Is Going On" - Real Clear Politics Video

Yeager Goes to the Front - by Ann Barnhardt - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook

Video: James Yeager threatens to 'kill people' over gun control - Digital Journal

Raving Violent Lunatic Threatens to ‘Start Killing People’ if Obama Tries to Take His Guns (video) - Americans Against the Tea Party (http://aattp.org) - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: A prototypical example of how anti-Constitution lib scum uses demonization and the politics/propaganda of personal destruction. In my opinion, Yeager is a brave patriot who said what needed to be said at exactly the right time. The British tyrants would not have been driven from India except for the political crossfire set up between the warriors who were blowing up trains and the Gandhi-type pacifists who opposed them rhetorically while supporting them spiritually. Blacks-as-chattel slavery would not have been polarized if famous abolitionist John Brown and his followers had not said, in effect, "We're going to start killing white slave owners until slavery is abolished. Of course, the establishment hung him for his morally correct and heroic stand. See John Brown's Speech to the Court at his Trial.)

Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control - The Raw Story - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: Yet another prototypical example of how anti-Constitution lib scum uses demonization and the politics/propaganda of personal destruction.)

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? - by The D.C. Clothesline

Preppers will die in WROL - YouTube video - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: Some might say this warrior's approach to the problem is politically smarter than James Yeager's approach below. That is not necessarily the case. This battle-seasoned warrior is giving you information pertinent to surviving in an actual shooting battle with professionally-skilled enemies who are trying their best to kill you and will give no quarter if they get the upper hand. In contrast, Yeager was trying to get patriots jacked up so they would be emotionally prepared for the hard times which lie ahead — the kind of times which try men's souls. In my opinion, both warriors have done well. When the government has become an occupying criminal cabal and most Americans seem willfully and stupidly oblivious to that unconstitutional occupation and their pending enslavement, it is not for me to judge the ministry of another patriot who is trying to wake them up.)

Banksters Kill With Impunity? Catherine Austin-Fitts w/ Jeff Rense - YouTube video

Pack your bags video: James Yeager "I'm gonna start killing people" - YouTube video - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: I am going to leave this embedding up even though the video was taken down.)

James Yeager: "I'm gonna start killing people" - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: This copy of the video was found on LiveLeak.com.)

Pack Your Bags Part 2 - YouTube video - (WEBMASTER'S NOTE: This is Yeager's clarification of his "if it goes one inch further, I'm gonna start killing people" comment in the first video. Partly because Yeager's videos are all over the Internet, it is your humble webmaster's opinion that, in a discussion of the problem at issue, and various individual's attitudes about it, posting the videos definitely falls within the purview of the Fair Use doctrine as explained elsewhere on this website.)

Judge Jeanine: Banning weapons to prevent crime doesn't work

Ted Nugent Talks NRA, NY, Obama & Piers Morgan with Gunsdotcom - YouTube video

300 Come and Get Them - YouTube video

Line in the Sand - YouTube video

Warning Graphic 2 Apache Helicopters Engage a Platoon of Taliban - YouTube video

AH-64 and C-130 Engage Insurgents - YouTube video

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube video

Afghanistan - Absolutely typical apache attack with Hellfire and 30mm Gun - YouTube video

01/05/2007 - Apache Missile Attack on Terrorists Buildings - YouTube video

18+ *Warning Graphic* 2 Apache Helicopters Engage over 20 Taliban fighters *NEW* - YouTube video

Taliban column attacked by US Apache helicopter in Afghanistan (2009) - YouTube video

30mm Apache Gun - YouTube video

Apache Takes Out Armed Insurgents With 30mm In Iraq - YouTube video

US Military Killing Terrorists - YouTube video

Spain Police Beating Everyone: A Warning To America - YouTube video

Seattle Police To Roll Out Surveillance Drones with Infrared Cameras - A BrightCove video


American FREEDOM Under ATTACK: Domestic SYP DRONES To Patrol Streets Of SEATTLE - YouTube video

DHS-HSI Homeland Security Investigations El Paso SRT MRAP Armored Vehicle - YouTube video

Under construction . . .

FOOTNOTES:

1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics2". These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, "sedition" is defined as: "An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an over act; attempts made by meetings or speeches or by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the state... In English law. The offense of publishing, verbally or otherwise, any words or document with the intention of exciting disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the sovereign, or the government and constitution of the kingdom, or either house of parliament, or the administration of justice, or of exciting his majesty's subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state, or of exciting feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of his majesty's subjects" (cites omitted).

The 1776 War for Independence was fought over that very issue: the scumbaggery of the king (aka "sovereign"). Having gone through that experience, the Founders gave us the 1st Amendment for the express purpose of allowing any citizen to say, "the king is a tyrannical murdering scum who needs to be killed!" without suffering retribution at the hands of the state's police power operatives.

In the United States, the law is the sovereign, not men. In the case of U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), the Supreme Court said: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."

An excellent contrast between the sovereignty of government office holders versus the sovereignty of law can be found in the case of Chisolm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419 (1793) by contrasting the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Jay with the dissenting opinion of elitist scumbag James Iredell.

The logical inference of the sovereignty-of-law doctrine is that it cannot be "sedition" to stir up public disaffection with tyrannical power-usurping, law-breaking scumbags who, legitimately or fraudulently, just happen to hold government office. They are not the sovereign, the law itself is. And since the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, anybody who violates it is a lawbreaker.

ShareThis