Why Revolution Inside USA Is A Strategical Mistake

a reply to: Peeple

ANOTHER person who can't read he US CENSUS?
Frankly being #1 populace is not an overreaching domination and since color division is a JOKE anyway you are neglecting to see what a weak POTUS has done to the world .
rhe SAME idiot is now starting another Vietnam in Ukraine via operarion "RAPID TRIDENT"
Stupid ,since Putin WILL NOT surrender the Crymea and intends to KEEP that naval base,but so is PUTIN for not being satisfied with it.

I see a lot of ignorance in this topic. Not too unexpected, as ATS seems to have abandoned it's crowning motto long ago, at least in the subject matter that appears here.

I have a couple things to comment on. These threads pop up from time to time and it takes a lot out of me to care about every one.

False Idea #1

"American's will never revolt/there will never be enough to revolt/lazy, Superbowl Sunday, iPhones, ect ect"

While this is certainly true for the majority of Americans, let us not be deluded by the fact that revolution does not take majority action. If 1% of the US population decided to revolt, a number that by standard of how fed up people are is not very much, then the amount of revolutions would outnumber US military, active and reserve, by 2 to 1. Seeing as how American's don't really need to procure weaponry to have a fighting chance, this leaves them at an extreme numbers advantage but a slight technological advantage. Which leads to false idea number two.

False Idea #2

"Revolutionaries stand no chance against the almighty power of the US military structure."

If we lived in an age of wonton, unplanned, uncoordinated, and inconsequential military action - this MIGHT be true. However, guerrilla warfare has proved (even as recent as the War on Terror), that ill equipped and even ill numbered sides stand much more than just a chance.

"But wait TNR, won't they just carpet bomb and nuke the hell out of any would be revolutionaries?"

Maybe in your delusional nightmares. A revolution would take place among civilians and the general population. Any disregard for the life of those not involved in the conflict would lead to even more people joining the side of the revolution. This is why the more we bomb and invade Middle Eastern countries, their numbers continue to grow. Will the government destroy the necessary infrastructure to manage their own country? Will they risk sending the world into a nuclear winter on account of destroying a pocket of rebels at point A or point B? No. Hard no. It turns into a big cloudy MAYBE if, and only if, they are on the cusp of losing all their power and have nothing further to lose.

False Idea #3

"China/Russia/Mexico/Europe will invade the US and take over with the weakened defenses."

This one always baffles me. If a revolutionary force succeeds and manages to win back the United States, they will just have defeated the most technologically advanced and arguably powerful military in the world, AND they now own ever piece of technology that is at that military's disposal. Common sense dictates that when amateurs with an itchy trigger finger gain control of the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, some random joe country isn't going to want to be the first to test that precedent. Not only that but the logistics of a Pacific Ocean crossing to invade our country are pretty treacherous as best, and not likely to happen without warning. I guess the assumption is that once revolutionaries take over, they will just abandon all border and air defense and go off to farm and be free or some BS, I don't know. Either way, it's wrong.

False Idea #4

"The new installed power will be far worse than anything we have today!"

While I am always quick to admit this possibility, that, honestly will be up to the people to decide. Most revolutionary minded people come from two opposing sides and ideologies. There are the statist, pro-dictatorship followers, those who believe more power will bring more order and a better life, and there are the Libertarian minded, anarcho-Capitalist minded who believe less government power and more personal freedom is the way to go. There are of course those in between, but what matters is who, when the dust settles, the people decide to put their faith into to lead the country to a new era. The only way things get worse is if the people choose the first choice, and sadly, throughout history, support for those comes in droves because it sounds nice and it is easy just to relegate power to a central source rather than to accept local and individual responsibilities for one's actions, survival, and freedoms.

If the revolution occurs in the US, it will be for the same reasons the first American Revolution occurred. Lack of freedom and lack of change people are able to make in the affairs of government.

False Idea #5

"America isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. People claim we are slaves when we are not."

We are slaves to the whims of our government whether you choose to notice the bars around you or not. We are slaves to the debt of our government. We are slaves to their choices. We are slaves to their laws.

"We have a revolution every 4 years, it's called the voting booth!"

Where we are led to believe we have a choice by choosing constantly over the lesser of two evils, while third parties and independents are given no hint of a fair share in the political stage and people have actually resorted to ideas like, "Oh well he's a black guy, let's see how he does as President." or "She's a woman, we haven't had one of those as President yet" with no actual care in the world for their ideologies because we already know that the talking games of Washington change while the agendas, regardless of who is involved, stay exactly the same.

False Idea #6

"No one ever comes up with a plan." or "Who is going to lead, you?"

This is generally the final point that anti-revolutionaries jump to in order to derail a revolutionary argument. The simple fact is that there are plenty of plans. Throughout my years on ATS I have seen dozens of plans on this site along about how to successfully revolt and safely and efficiently usher in change post-revolution, I've even authored some myself. No plan is without risks and possible setbacks, but these guys expect to have every single contingency accounted for in these "Plans of Action" and will be quick to point out any possible consequences of not doing so.

"What if a meteor hits the US after the revolution? What are you going to do then? I don't see that in your plan!"

Sadly these are the contingencies that revolution plans are expected to have and they are outlandish and ridiculous. In the end, despite several good plans surfacing, anti-revolutionaries are just that: anti-revolutionary. They will defame and bring down every thought of revolution because they are living well-to-do in their current lifestyles with no regard for everyone else. They don't care that a revolution could bring about a more generalized equality among all people instead of a 1% power grab that we currently have, they simply care that in event of a revolution, they might be without their Wi-Fi for an extended period of time and that, my friends, is a big no-no.

And they call us the selfish ones.

And who will lead?

Whoever is qualified. Whoever shows the most passion and confidence in the goal and stands behind that goal until the very end. Who shows the compassion necessary to lead and who can makes the tough decisions. Who doesn't let personal ideology get in the way of individual freedom for all and who maintains a level of patience and self sacrifice necessary for the betterment of the whole and not just the self.

There are plenty out there to lead. They just don't know that they are leaders yet.




Revolution will come. America will fall. We are no more invincible than any other empire in history. Tick-tock.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

Thanks for your care, and awesome rebuttals. Though your well informed, I hope you watch Gray State and give us an opinion, the documentary is calling for peaceful revolution and I found it highly informative. I think your right that people need to realize they are underestimating the strength and power they really have in shaping a different future.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

I can not disagree.

You say america will fall but i just see the need to reset it not destroy it.

I think the foundation is solid but from time to time we have to get back to the foundation.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

If you think I believe in False Idea #5 because my post fell in it, then you're not entirely correct. I think we need something, but most of the population isn't ready for it. Not yet.

You need about 1/3 of the population to buy in. I don't think we've reached that critical mass yet, and even if we have, there hasn't been an event that has touched it off. That 1/3 has to go off all at once in such a way as to make it clear there is no returning and the only possible way out is forward. And of that 1/3 not all of it has to be actively fighting. They just have to be actively supporting/sympathetic enough to support the ones who do fight.

You also need about 1/4 to 1/3 of the current military. Again, this supposes you have an event that touches off the revolt.

So no you don't need a majority. Far from it but you do need a committed group and widespread sympathy. And we just haven't seen things coalesce in such a way so as to provoke that. TPTB keep us too divided. They are doing that very well. I can think of some things that would tick off big enough segments of the population to reach critical mass, but those things have not happened yet, and if I can think of them, then you can bet TPTB likely have too.

I say there is a way to get the job done without taking one single life.

I once won a race i believed with my whole heart i could win 1st. place.

I was extremely happy when i came in second.

The point is that anything is possible but you have to have goals.

originally posted by: deadeyedick


The point is that anything is possible but you have to have goals.

And there in lies the problem. There are no goals other than change the status quo.

Most people don't even know what the status quo is or do they care. Hard to formulate a "goal" with such apathy.

That apathy does have a capacity to change but it won't change because of politics.

a reply to: olaru12

I think the real problem we have in america is that the nfl teams are using under inflated balls.

If you do not believe me just turn on your programming box.

a reply to: olaru12

I think thats why its important to spread knowledge and its good to see a serious discussion taking place about it! It's the beginning of seriously formulating change in enough people to truly manifest it. It might not have a structured form to start, but you have to try and restore decency, justice, truth, end corruption, money in politics. These things can be tackled if done so with a non-defeatist attitude and thats the point of new revolution as well. Your underestimating what people can do.

a reply to: CottonwoodStormy

I watched Gray State today. I can pretty much agree on everything they say but I don't believe people are united enough to give a collective "no" to authority that will bring about any change. Sadly, they are going to ignore it and it is going to get worse and worse until the only option is defending yourself with violence, as they did mention in the film.

The truth movement does not have the capabilities to contend against the combined forced of money, government, and the media, and it is just something we are going to have to deal with. Should we stop spread truth? No. But I believe we have to come to terms that with the division that is happening, peaceful noncompliance is not going to happen.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Just because you believe in something does not make it necessarily come true. You did have to put that hard work into that race but that was a simple goal.

Collectively changing a mindset requires many people to believe in the same thing in order to make that change. That change is being free. When it comes to being free, there is no second place. You are either free or you aren't. The closest thing to second place is what we have right now - some freedom or the illusion of freedom, but even inmates in a prison have SOME freedom.

a reply to: ketsuko

I wasn't targeting anyone specifically, I just saw that most of the ideas were raised from multiple people in this topic (and they usually are).

I do agree that we don't have the support necessary yet, but eventually we will. When the laws become ridiculous and people begin realizing that resistance is the only way, then the mindset will shift. I don't believe you need that amount of support right off, but that it will spread like wildfire once it begins.

The event needed to start it will simply be the resistance. There won't need to be a grand scheme or chaos. As soon as the government decides to do enough to have people violently fight back, that precedent will spread and the revolution will begin. After that it will only be a matter of time before it organizes and grows as a true entity.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

A shooting revolution at this stage of history would have to happen like the French Revolution of 1789, and it would have to happen nation wide. The French Revolution happened in Paris alone.

The most likely form revolution is secession. Secession is not aggressive, so there is a chance that it could slide through a crisis, especially if the big government is busy with something else.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

No THEY have to make a really overt move,nothing racial will do not politics as usual.
WE already showed what can happen during the Bundy incident,no one fired. THAT bothered them as it showed the people were disciplined even when leaderless.
I doubt they are that stupid.
Unless they kill of most of the population or attempt to forcibly disarm us, all they have to do is wait 20 years.
Cold war pukes will be dead and they will have pre programmed the masses for it.

a reply to: chuck258

The way I see it going down is through attacks by rebels on DHS or ATF or NSA targets and threatening more attacks if the government doesn't do XYZ and the US government responding by raiding suspected 'rebel' facilities, arms caches, etc.

That could work but it wont be possible in the near future, if in fact it is now, because of the governmental and big business access to information. They will be able to find rebels in less than a day, every time.

Before 2020 or never. Maybe 2030 if the rollout gets slowed.

As a student of military history, I know that the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights in general has a lot to do with tactical situations. The Bill of Rights was written as though the government could be an enemy someday. When the enemy knows all of your options, resources, locations, and friends there is no way to attack.

It will be like playing cards and the other guy can see ever card in your hand.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: chuck258
Why would an anti-government group attack American civilians? They are not Al-Queda trying to kill non-believers, they are a group that is growing more and more concerned with where the country is ultimately going, that is the fault of Politicians, who, a select few would be targets of such aggression. It would be attacks on the enforcement arm of the US government (as in my previous post, ATF, FBI, NSA, etc.)

Because we are the only targets. Unless you propose that they would instead assassinate government officials, the only violent rebellion possible is against the people in order to cause economic losses and a police state to show how bad the government is. Bombing government buildings and military bases doesn't work very well and that's the alternative. You're far more likely to see Eric Frein style rebellion with each acting individually. On a large scale that will overwhelm the authorities and people will get away to commit followup attacks.

Civilians would never be intentionally killed. The war would be against the government. All of the targets would be government property.

It is always faster to destroy than to build. Sooner or later the government would loose its capability to govern by force.

Edit: As a followup, ask yourself this. If you wanted to shut down commerce in a city (or the entire country) in order to cause economic damage costing the government billions of dollars how many roadside IED's would you have to detonate before people start avoiding the roads? I don't think it would be very many. I bet NYC would be brought to a complete standstill for 2-4 weeks with 10 or fewer bombs scattered over a week.

The revolutionaries are not conquering the population. There will be no destruction of commerce to further the war effort.

Only the government is a target.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Actually, the American Revolution is a great example of propaganda smear tactics from a bunch of smugglers upset that they had to pay taxes on their goods now. The Boston Massacre wasn't the fault of the British, but rather an American who got behind them and yelled "Fire!" But that didn't stop the separatists from pushing tons of propaganda that it was the British's fault. Also, the Revolution would have remained in the New England colonies if it weren't for Ben Franklin and his propaganda to pull the rest of the states into the conflict (the divided snake for instance as well as naming a Virginian as the head of the Continental Congress). The American Revolution is an excellent study in media propaganda tactics.

You are Canadian then? This sounds like a Crown influenced rendition of history. Just the thing for a bunch of crown bootlickers to sop up. Really this is stupid. For example Virginia was the hotbed of the revolution and its involvement was not a result of outside machinations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CottonwoodStormy
a reply to: swanne

David Crowley was not hollywood, he was an independent filmaker and he was perhaps killed for it. You are being seriously narrowminded, but to each their own.

I find it unlikely that David Crowley was killed for his video it is more likely that the official story is true. If we assume that he was murdered, it's not like the murderers prevented the video from being released or anything. In fact, I'd say that more people know about this The Grey State video now more than ever. I had never heard of it until Crowley died.

They wouldn't care if Crowley's death resulted in more exposure to his work.....just so we known that he is dead. Thats the psyop. Like the mob knocking off a guy that testified against them. Thats the overall message when we look back over the years at many of these after the fact suspicious deaths. Something about tainting the thing with the stench of death and the fear of murder.

I do have to wonder what the break point will be?

Seems like we keep riding that line ever day now. The amount of media coverage we have now does not help this feeling. Might be even why we no longer react to some action with protest anymore. Turn up the heat slowly on the frog, so to speak.

I knew this thread was not going to be a popular one.

Telling people that they must have self-control was never well accepted.