Violent overthrow is very popular these days but I don't think people realize how dangerous it is, not just in the conflict itself, but how easily things can go wrong and how easily you can end up with a new government that is worse than before. I haven't heard anyone suggest how such an uprising could be done properly to avoid these pitfalls.
Before a violent overthrow can have legitimacy, there are several things that need to be done first:
There needs to be a listing and public declaration/release of specific grievances against the current government. This should include examples and evidence backing up these claims.
There needs to be a re-affirming of the principles, values and rights of those who are publishing the grievances. It needs to be clear who this movement consists of, what their values are, and why they believe these grievances to be legitimate.
There needs to be a clear statement of intentions and a path forward in order to remedy the situation. This should always be a non-violent solution to begin with, but make it clear that justified violence will be used if there is insufficient relief given.
Only once remedy of grievances is denied by government should the next step be taken, namely violence to overthrow the oppressive government and bring relief to those oppressed.
Not that I'm aware of... not in any clear and substantive way with sufficient support behind it. If that support doesn't exist then this effort is dead in the water.
Just paint targets on our back.
No.
I'm not talking about doxing specific individuals. I'm talking about making sure everyone involved understands who this movement consists of and what they believe. Remember, many other people are watching and trying to decide which side to support.
You've never read our founding documents, apparently. Restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land should be the obvious resolution. We don't have anything better.
Restoring the U.S. Constitution is the destination, not the path to reach the destination.
Fuck it. America is a gigantic country. Nobody is ever doing a successful ground invasion on the US. It'd be them vs a half a billion heavily armed lunatics who will think the world is ending.
I say let's balkanize and then sort it out. I propose the Midwest secedes and leave the coasts to starve.
Unfortunately, ground invasions in the modern world will follow bombardment, most likely by a nuclear strike. A ground invasion may fail, but only after they've nuked half the country. I'd say that's the worst-case scenario but it's not improbable if the USA continues down the current path.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
All-out warfare in the modern area is all about disabling your enemy with first strike nuclear capability. Hypothetically if China or some other country wanted to attack us, it would start with a nuclear strike on key cities and bases to disable our chain of command and make it difficult or impossible to retaliate. Obviously if they failed they would pay dearly but if it was successful and they manage to evade our early detection system, we'd be mostly helpless from that point forward.
The primary targets would be places like Washington D.C., The Pentagon and any nuclear silos or nuclear capable ships or submarines that they know about. Secondary targets would be the various forts and other non-nuclear military installations across the country. Third would be major cities in key states where there's a strong state government, police force and national guard. Fourth would probably be power-plants across the country, although this might not be necessary.
Once this is done, the only purpose for a ground invasion at this point would be to take our natural resources --- oil, mineral deposits, farmland, forestry, etc. -- which are massive. This obviously requires a huge effort to control these areas, but they may try if it's important enough. That said, yes, I agree any ground invasion of this sort would most likely ultimately fail due to the tremendous resistance from a well-armed populace.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
It all depends on the first strike. This isn't like Pearl Harbor. We live in an age of hyper-sonic intercontinental ballistic missiles that can destroy entire cities at a time. Air invasions wouldn't even be necessary except to mop up any resistance afterwards.
I'm not trying to scare anyone; this is all hypothetical after all. I'm just explaining how it could be done. I think people are too complacent and take our military strength for granted. It's important to realize that while our technological prowess remains unmatched in the world, Leftists have been working hard to weaken us by purging the ranks of anyone who doesn't think like them, removing leadership who oppose their idiotic social justice programs and even kicking out soldiers who refuse the vaccine mandates.
You can have all the military technology in the world, but when your soldiers and generals are Leftists who hate our country anyways, are they really going to put their lives on the line and do what is necessary to win? Even if they were willing, are they capable? I sincerely doubt it.
Your doomsday scenario only plays out if our entire country is dependant on chain of command at the federal level. It is not.
If a nuclear strike hit our capitol, pretty sure whoever fired it won't be alive much longer to retaliate further, much less strike.
Also, you keep ignoring the physical size of the country. Someone in Wyoming won't be affected directly if a nuclear bomb destroys NYC. The whole country doesn't hinge on one or two cities.
It seems you really want America to be as pathetic as our retard media portrays us. We are not. If our stupid federal gov't falls we have states rights and would love on from there.
Your doomsday scenario only plays out if our entire country is dependant on chain of command at the federal level. It is not.
If a nuclear strike hit our capitol, pretty sure whoever fired it won't be alive much longer to retaliate further, much less strike.
Let's assume there are a handful of nuclear missile silos in North Dakota that are completely safe from the attack. Do you really think the silo commander is going to pick a target and give the order to fire the nukes by himself? These nukes require a chain of command by design so this is virtually impossible. What about an airbase? Is the base commander going to sortie all the fighters on his own without clear orders or objectives? It's not likely.
The intention of the strike would be to hit all of the primary targets simultaneously, so it's not like any significant portion of the command structure would remain after the initial strike, and even if it did, communications would be severely affected so it probably wouldn't matter. It would be up to low level commanders to make BIG decisions in a short period of time with very little information all on their own without being able to coordinate with anyone else in the command structure.
Also, you keep ignoring the physical size of the country. Someone in Wyoming won't be affected directly if a nuclear bomb destroys NYC. The whole country doesn't hinge on one or two cities.
You're absolutely correct. The average person living in a rural area or less populated state probably wouldn't even know the attack was happening at first, and they may not even be directly affected at all. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.
It seems you really want America to be as pathetic as our retard media portrays us. We are not. If our stupid federal gov't falls we have states rights and would love on from there.
I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. I'm just trying to be realistic about how a hypothetical scenario could play out. I obviously don't want any of this to happen.
Things collapsing would be nice where I live. My state is inching towards secession anyway and we're low pop and isolated, so it would be pretty cozy. Like a soft return to the 20th century. Localized economy, increased focus on local community, a return to the ideals of America, sign me up.
Based on most historical trends, people have stricter rules, other people are killed, most of us still have jobs and lives that aren't fully effected. The leadership rants and raves, kills itself in its own power struggle, and then new leadership arrives.
I mean, sure, the politicians and many of the lobbyists are in DC, but the real power and vested interests lie in the area from New York to Massachusetts…
You need to take them out, too, if you actually want to change anything, long-term…
Also California and the whole West Coast, but that’s… Arguably a separate battle.
I try for the same thing I always do, set myself up to have options. To increase the time it takes to be backed into a corner. Both in a continuing government and a collapse scenario. Total collapse? I do my best to get by with skills and what resources I have and can manage to defend. Generally, I'd go with I'm good at fixing and building things. Beyond that, I'm smart and tough and will figure something out. That's all my frontiersman ancestors had and they figured it out.
If it doesn't work out I did the best with what I had to work with and I won't have any regrets.
Truthfully? The world goes to shit since team America world police won't be able to intervene and use force. China, Russia and India will likely be the big bosses and maps will likely change to WW2 levels of new-ness. Africa starves because no more free handouts and South Africa goes full retard and removes the Beors, most of Eastern Europe will likely fall to Russia, China takes Taiwan and goes after a chunk of east Asian countries but is likely stalemated by a new version of the Quad or Bubble Tea Alliance and India, so they just takes over the territory they've conquered (including in Africa by their B&R initiative) and wester Europe will likely become a powder keg of secretarian, religious and ethnic violence.
It will look like the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Russia reformation perestroika under yeltsin. Ie: a fucking mess, but livable. States like CA will form their own countries and be recognized. Smaller states will approach the EU and other influencers to form new governments loosely designed in the spirit of the original constitution. Crime will be rampant. Euro bank and EU will choose currency to borrow against creating a new fiat, other states will be forced to adopt or move to a good standard (which they won’t have)
No country can fight their own citizens long enough to win a war. It is proven to be impossible.
It happened a plenty. For example here in Poland resistance was suppressed mostly 1944-1947, lingering until early 1950s in a very residue form with a local armed uprising in 1956 in Poznań but it was an unique occurence (and also put down very quickly and decisevely by tank columns).
I think your version of realism is heavily skewed and full of logic holes.
So NYC gets destroyed by a nuclear missile but for some reason everyone in the military is so retarded they can't say boo without the head giving the OK to retaliate? That's not how any of this works.
Also, my Wyoming example was meant to illustrate scale, distance, and the naturally decentralized arrangement of power across the US. NYC gets destroyed. How does that affect Pittsburgh? Or Chicago? Or Houston? Or Seattle? Much less the hundreds of millions of people who don't live in major metro areas.
You seem to want to prove the US would collapse instantly from a nuclear strike. I keep pointing out why that wouldn't really affect anything and you keep returning with the idea the US is one giant body and if the head dies we all die
This is not, and never will be, the case. You should pull out a map and really understand what the US is before claiming we'd all submit and die instantly from an attack.
We'd probably want to add something that keeps the executive from being controlled by the House. Not sure what that would be.
Also need an amendment that addresses medical tyranny
It's already illegal for the government to not have a budget surplus lol.
Also need an anem
Declare the second amendment to be absolute with the only exceptions targeting mental cases, sex offenders, terrorist threats, and criminals.
The first amendment should be similar.
Violent overthrow is very popular these days but I don't think people realize how dangerous it is, not just in the conflict itself, but how easily things can go wrong and how easily you can end up with a new government that is worse than before. I haven't heard anyone suggest how such an uprising could be done properly to avoid these pitfalls.
Before a violent overthrow can have legitimacy, there are several things that need to be done first:
There needs to be a listing and public declaration/release of specific grievances against the current government. This should include examples and evidence backing up these claims.
There needs to be a re-affirming of the principles, values and rights of those who are publishing the grievances. It needs to be clear who this movement consists of, what their values are, and why they believe these grievances to be legitimate.
There needs to be a clear statement of intentions and a path forward in order to remedy the situation. This should always be a non-violent solution to begin with, but make it clear that justified violence will be used if there is insufficient relief given.
Only once remedy of grievances is denied by government should the next step be taken, namely violence to overthrow the oppressive government and bring relief to those oppressed.
Not that I'm aware of... not in any clear and substantive way with sufficient support behind it. If that support doesn't exist then this effort is dead in the water.
I'm not talking about doxing specific individuals. I'm talking about making sure everyone involved understands who this movement consists of and what they believe. Remember, many other people are watching and trying to decide which side to support.
Restoring the U.S. Constitution is the destination, not the path to reach the destination.
Fuck it. America is a gigantic country. Nobody is ever doing a successful ground invasion on the US. It'd be them vs a half a billion heavily armed lunatics who will think the world is ending.
I say let's balkanize and then sort it out. I propose the Midwest secedes and leave the coasts to starve.
Unfortunately, ground invasions in the modern world will follow bombardment, most likely by a nuclear strike. A ground invasion may fail, but only after they've nuked half the country. I'd say that's the worst-case scenario but it's not improbable if the USA continues down the current path.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
All-out warfare in the modern area is all about disabling your enemy with first strike nuclear capability. Hypothetically if China or some other country wanted to attack us, it would start with a nuclear strike on key cities and bases to disable our chain of command and make it difficult or impossible to retaliate. Obviously if they failed they would pay dearly but if it was successful and they manage to evade our early detection system, we'd be mostly helpless from that point forward.
The primary targets would be places like Washington D.C., The Pentagon and any nuclear silos or nuclear capable ships or submarines that they know about. Secondary targets would be the various forts and other non-nuclear military installations across the country. Third would be major cities in key states where there's a strong state government, police force and national guard. Fourth would probably be power-plants across the country, although this might not be necessary.
Once this is done, the only purpose for a ground invasion at this point would be to take our natural resources --- oil, mineral deposits, farmland, forestry, etc. -- which are massive. This obviously requires a huge effort to control these areas, but they may try if it's important enough. That said, yes, I agree any ground invasion of this sort would most likely ultimately fail due to the tremendous resistance from a well-armed populace.
It all depends on the first strike. This isn't like Pearl Harbor. We live in an age of hyper-sonic intercontinental ballistic missiles that can destroy entire cities at a time. Air invasions wouldn't even be necessary except to mop up any resistance afterwards.
I'm not trying to scare anyone; this is all hypothetical after all. I'm just explaining how it could be done. I think people are too complacent and take our military strength for granted. It's important to realize that while our technological prowess remains unmatched in the world, Leftists have been working hard to weaken us by purging the ranks of anyone who doesn't think like them, removing leadership who oppose their idiotic social justice programs and even kicking out soldiers who refuse the vaccine mandates.
You can have all the military technology in the world, but when your soldiers and generals are Leftists who hate our country anyways, are they really going to put their lives on the line and do what is necessary to win? Even if they were willing, are they capable? I sincerely doubt it.
Your doomsday scenario only plays out if our entire country is dependant on chain of command at the federal level. It is not.
If a nuclear strike hit our capitol, pretty sure whoever fired it won't be alive much longer to retaliate further, much less strike.
Also, you keep ignoring the physical size of the country. Someone in Wyoming won't be affected directly if a nuclear bomb destroys NYC. The whole country doesn't hinge on one or two cities.
It seems you really want America to be as pathetic as our retard media portrays us. We are not. If our stupid federal gov't falls we have states rights and would love on from there.
Let's assume there are a handful of nuclear missile silos in North Dakota that are completely safe from the attack. Do you really think the silo commander is going to pick a target and give the order to fire the nukes by himself? These nukes require a chain of command by design so this is virtually impossible. What about an airbase? Is the base commander going to sortie all the fighters on his own without clear orders or objectives? It's not likely.
The intention of the strike would be to hit all of the primary targets simultaneously, so it's not like any significant portion of the command structure would remain after the initial strike, and even if it did, communications would be severely affected so it probably wouldn't matter. It would be up to low level commanders to make BIG decisions in a short period of time with very little information all on their own without being able to coordinate with anyone else in the command structure.
You're absolutely correct. The average person living in a rural area or less populated state probably wouldn't even know the attack was happening at first, and they may not even be directly affected at all. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.
I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. I'm just trying to be realistic about how a hypothetical scenario could play out. I obviously don't want any of this to happen.
Biden is actually pretty based. Literally paying half a mil per immigrant and shipping them to red state shitholes.
Yea, but Biden is trying to replace hicks. He's pretty based for accelerating like mad. Respect the game.
It has 'collapsed' before and people survived and rebuilt.
Life was pretty unpleasant in many places during the Revolutionary and Civil wars.
Find community. Have some skills that are useful if there is no electricity. Have supplies and ways to get water. Have faith.
Things collapsing would be nice where I live. My state is inching towards secession anyway and we're low pop and isolated, so it would be pretty cozy. Like a soft return to the 20th century. Localized economy, increased focus on local community, a return to the ideals of America, sign me up.
Have friends. Have family. Have a plan. Have offline mediums of information storage.
Based on most historical trends, people have stricter rules, other people are killed, most of us still have jobs and lives that aren't fully effected. The leadership rants and raves, kills itself in its own power struggle, and then new leadership arrives.
Slow collapse is worse.
Get to know your neighbors now.
Someone crosses the Potomac with an Army and thus ends the Republic and after a tribulate couple decades the rise of the American Empire.
I mean, sure, the politicians and many of the lobbyists are in DC, but the real power and vested interests lie in the area from New York to Massachusetts…
You need to take them out, too, if you actually want to change anything, long-term…
Also California and the whole West Coast, but that’s… Arguably a separate battle.
...Not to mention every foreign power actually funding the subversive usurpers.
I try for the same thing I always do, set myself up to have options. To increase the time it takes to be backed into a corner. Both in a continuing government and a collapse scenario. Total collapse? I do my best to get by with skills and what resources I have and can manage to defend. Generally, I'd go with I'm good at fixing and building things. Beyond that, I'm smart and tough and will figure something out. That's all my frontiersman ancestors had and they figured it out.
If it doesn't work out I did the best with what I had to work with and I won't have any regrets.
Truthfully? The world goes to shit since team America world police won't be able to intervene and use force. China, Russia and India will likely be the big bosses and maps will likely change to WW2 levels of new-ness. Africa starves because no more free handouts and South Africa goes full retard and removes the Beors, most of Eastern Europe will likely fall to Russia, China takes Taiwan and goes after a chunk of east Asian countries but is likely stalemated by a new version of the Quad or Bubble Tea Alliance and India, so they just takes over the territory they've conquered (including in Africa by their B&R initiative) and wester Europe will likely become a powder keg of secretarian, religious and ethnic violence.
Live your life, and if any tyrant stands in your way, kill them.
It will look like the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Russia reformation perestroika under yeltsin. Ie: a fucking mess, but livable. States like CA will form their own countries and be recognized. Smaller states will approach the EU and other influencers to form new governments loosely designed in the spirit of the original constitution. Crime will be rampant. Euro bank and EU will choose currency to borrow against creating a new fiat, other states will be forced to adopt or move to a good standard (which they won’t have)
It happened a plenty. For example here in Poland resistance was suppressed mostly 1944-1947, lingering until early 1950s in a very residue form with a local armed uprising in 1956 in Poznań but it was an unique occurence (and also put down very quickly and decisevely by tank columns).
https://polishhistory.pl/cursed-soldiers-a-rural-vengeance-war/
These guys were supposed to be experienced and hardened by WWII.
I think your version of realism is heavily skewed and full of logic holes.
So NYC gets destroyed by a nuclear missile but for some reason everyone in the military is so retarded they can't say boo without the head giving the OK to retaliate? That's not how any of this works.
Also, my Wyoming example was meant to illustrate scale, distance, and the naturally decentralized arrangement of power across the US. NYC gets destroyed. How does that affect Pittsburgh? Or Chicago? Or Houston? Or Seattle? Much less the hundreds of millions of people who don't live in major metro areas.
You seem to want to prove the US would collapse instantly from a nuclear strike. I keep pointing out why that wouldn't really affect anything and you keep returning with the idea the US is one giant body and if the head dies we all die This is not, and never will be, the case. You should pull out a map and really understand what the US is before claiming we'd all submit and die instantly from an attack.
It's pretty sad thinking of what could've been socially and technologically....and then looking at the dumpster fire we have instead.
Alabama here.
High time we got the band back together anyway. 😎
Florida was Spanish.
Spain is a shitstorm.
Was
I wouldn't mind using the Cross of Burgundy in our flag, though. It looks cooler.