THE ROOTS OF RESISTANCE

Unconventional warfare is war by other than traditional means. The traditional means of warfare are what we normally think of as war: the armies of two or more countries fighting to destroy the military industrial capabilities of the other(s). Unconventional war is secret war or surrogate war. In the words of current US Army Special Forces doctrine, UW is “a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations, predominantly conducted through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces organized, trained, equipped, supported, and directed in varying degrees by an external source. UW includes, but is not limited to, guerrilla warfare (GW), sabotage, subversion, intelligence activities, and unconventional assisted recovery (UAR).”

Let’s tear into this definition and see what it has for us. First, we see that unconventional warfare is above all else operations. These military operations are performed by, with, or through irregular forces. That means by personnel which are not members of the regime’s military or security forces. We’re talking civilians here -- members of the indigenous population.

Now the next piece of the statement reveals sponsorship. We on the outside are backing the irregulars on the inside and the irregulars are operating in support of military or paramilitary operations.

Next we see that UW is made up of the interrelated tasks of guerrilla warfare, sabotage, subversion against hostile states (or resistance), intelligence activities, and unconventional assisted recovery (what used to be called evasion and escape).

Guerrilla warfare is military/paramilitary operations conducted by irregular, predominantly indigenous personnel against superior enemy forces inside enemy-held or hostile territory. It is the overt military arm of resistance movements/insurgencies.

Sabotage is an act or acts designed to injure or obstruct the national defence of a nation by the deliberate damaging or destruction of national defense or war material, premises, or utilities to include natural and human resources. It would also refer to actions taken to injure or obstruct the military capability of an occupying power. An occupying power is a foreign military power which has invaded a country and is now running that country after defeating that country’s military and government – think the Nazis in France.

Subversion is a form of effects-based targeting on human terrain. Really, it is all about the changing of allegiances. Subversion is the primary topic of this manual. It’s what the resistance movement/insurgency does.

Intelligence activities include everything from running agent networks to learning the disposition and dispersion of enemy forces and capabilities.

Unconventional assisted recovery is the support of evaders and defectors. It amounts to moving individuals deemed as being very important from enemy-held territory into friendly controlled areas. This was formerly referred to in the doctrine as evasion and escape.

Okay, now we have a grasp of what exactly is referred to when unconventional warfare is mentioned and where the resistance fits into that overall big picture. Next, let’s examine what exactly are the conditions which lead to resistance being necessary.

WHEN DO YOU BECOME A RESISTER?

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

--Thomas Jefferson

The question is this: when do you become a resister?

We can deduce some answers to this question by using the quote above as our guide. The answer is in there. First notice how he describes “rightful liberty”: unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Literally, in an environment like the one Jefferson is alluding to, almost anything could be possible in the interactions between individuals just as long as no one’s rights are violated, which boils everything down to a matter of consent. Therefore, a free society should not move to limit the choices and interactions of individuals in any way other than a negative one – when rights are violated.

Notice Jefferson’s emphasis on the distinction that he didn’t phrase it “within the limits of the law.” He states that “law is often but the tyrant’s will” designed to violate and diminish the rights of the individual. So he’s saying that more often than not, laws are merely instruments used in the violation of individual rights.

Instruments used by whom? By the tyrant, right?

So to take this to the logical extreme – resistance becomes the only viable option left in the struggle for the recognition of one’s rights when all other means for the legal redress of grievances have been completely removed and shut down by “legal” decree of the State or the tyrant.

When do you become a resister?

When “the sociopolitical conditions are oppressive enough, resistance may develop into an organized resistance movement.”

That’s a fancy way of saying that the tyranny has gotten so bad, that the population has no more choice left but to revolt.

Resistance develops in direct relationship to the presence of tyranny. This is known as the resistance potential.

THE RESISTANCE POTENTIAL

In order for any resistance movement to exist, there must be, in the first place, a body of people who are subjected to what they believe is an oppressive authority.

Condition One: A disaffected population.

Mobilization of the population into resistance formations grows out of intense popular dissatisfaction with existing social and political conditions. Usually this dissatisfaction is the results of very specific grievances. The State is perceived by its actions and its legislation, as becoming indifferent to the rights of its citizens. As time goes on, this indifference becomes overt hostility towards any dissatisfaction voiced by the population. Subsequently, as the State listens to the people less while increasing its sanctions against dissatisfaction, the more that the resistance potential rises among individuals in society.

This is common sense. Would a resistance develop in a free society where official coercion has been eliminated? Would a resistance develop in a society that didn’t have a disaffected population? People who are happy in their environment don’t try to overthrow the government.

So before any resistance potential can be detected in a given society, there must also be an increasingly oppressive political/ruling authority that is beginning to get belligerent towards its population. As the tyranny increases, so does the resistance potential.

We can draw a graph to illustrate this. It looks like two smoothed moving average lines on a price chart. When the tyranny line goes up, so does the line describing the resistance potential. The two move in tandem together. The one influences the other.

Condition Two: Emerging hardcore tyranny as a State trend.

Increasingly, larger and larger segments of the population perceive that the State has denied or undermined the rights of their group(s) and they work to reestablish or restore those rights. The nature of the State, over time, is to increase its own powers while diminishing the abilities of individuals to act on their own.

To accomplish this sleight of hand, the State always cloaks it activities behind the ruse of “security” or “safety.” Thus, the State increasingly restricts the liberties of individuals in favor of “greater security” for the people. As this trend develops, the State militarizes the police and removes any barriers that might stand in the way of employing the military against the people. This is the State’s definition of “security.”

Ultimately, in the name of “national security”, the State redefines peaceful protest as an act of potential “terrorism” against the State. Free speech zones are erected. Peaceful assembly is attacked, licensed, and portrayed as a public nuisance or as subversion of the public good.

Once measures such as the above are in place, the outright outlawing of peaceful revolution is in the works.

The executive body in the State is always the tip of the spear when it comes to increasing tyranny. The executive begins making “law” via regulation, domestic policy, and “executive orders.”

Along the way, inalienable rights begin to be viewed as privileges and are, therefore, amendable to restriction by statute.

Everything impacting the freedom of the citizen becomes a debate about the greater good and security of the people. While the State dominated media prattles on and on about “threats” to the population which can only be dealt with via “greater security powers” to be granted to the State. These threats are bogus often times or deliberately created by black bag functions inside the security apparatus of the State. These are known as false flag operations.

In the end, the result is ALWAYS application of ever more stringent security at the expense of public liberties.

This is the State on steroids.

Tyranny, if it’s intelligently designed, will emerge slowly. In graduated steps. Like the income tax. You don’t go to bed one night a free sovereign human being and wake up the next morning in chains with TSA gate rapers in your bedroom checking your anal cavity for plastic explosives.

This march to tyranny starts out slowly, moving like a glacier. As the tyranny becomes bolder and the population has been acclimatized to this growth of oppression as being normal, as nothing out of the ordinary, the usurpers begin stepping up the pace to totalitarianism, sprinting for the goal post.

When the tyrants decide to go all the way, figuring that the final roll up will go without a hitch, they suddenly realize that portions of the population have been watching the rise of the police state, this segment has been planning and training and organizing covertly waiting for the State to cross the line.

And when the little tin gods do just that, they run into the brick wall of the resistance.

FREEDOM AND SECURITY

Despite the political wonks and their talking head pronouncements as to their abilities to balance freedom with greater security, it’s a lie. Freedom and security are completely incompatible bed mates.

By definition, a completely secure society is a de facto police State. On the spectrum of political models, the free and open society is on the extreme left end of the continuum line while the totalitarian police State occupies the extreme right side of the scale. In no way can a society occupy both ends at the same time. It’s either one or the other. Not both. Don’t be bamboozled by the lying scum bags blathering to the contrary.

Let’s review what constitutes “security” within a free and open society.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

-- 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Everyone in America is familiar with these words -- some more so than others. The progressives and collectivists absolutely loath this sentence. They go out of their way to try and make this very clear and understandable statement say things that it clearly does not say. The most retarded interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that they can come up with is that it only applies to the national guard -- that this right doesn’t bestow an individual right to keep firearms in the private residence.

The amendment wording begins “A well-regulated militia” so let’s begin there. What do the words “well-regulated” mean? Most people today would interpret “regulated” to mean bound down with regulations, i.e. lots of rules that dictate the lawful expression of the militia.

Not true at all. In colonial times, regulated meant “training.” If you were well-regulated, you were well trained, you practiced with your firearms, you knew your battle drills, and you gathered together with the other members of your community defence unit to train together. In colonial times, the militia consisted of any military-aged able bodied male in the community.

So that meant the militia were the individual people. It wasn’t a military unit organized and fielded by the State. It was a community defence force made up of the people themselves.

The first part of the statement then concludes that the well-regulated militia of the people is absolutely necessary to the security of a free State. The final piece of the statement further refines what this means: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Since the people are the militia and the militia exists to defend the community from outside aggression, the people must be armed.

The bottom line take-away from this is that a free society’s best security is an armed population.

There is no better defence against foreign aggression or internal tyranny than an armed population. That’s why the initial objective of any totalitarian takeover of society aims first to disarm the people.

History proves this point. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Pol Pot did it.

Filthy fascist dictators agree: gun control is the best security of the totalitarian State.