Jump to content

"Survival", Should this be Survival Forum?


Recommended Posts

Survival as in "Prepper" type stuff?

Many so called preppers understand the order of need to prepare for trouble such as in order; Air, Water, Food, Shelter, Communications, and Transportation. Subsistence living will require that people be able to survive without electricity or running water, but the aforementioned issues above are important ones to understand. It would be nice to believe that time travel is being used for the good of mankind, but if our government has it and can see our future will they prepare for the bad wars that will be in our future? Take a look around and tell me if you can see signs that they may be aware of what may come. The smart money folks may be doing well because they know the future?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Next American Revolution, By Warren "Bones" Bonesteel


In a military.com poll regarding Lt. Easterling's objections over Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president the last number is the one to focus on. For anyhow who is in possession of a few basic facts and has an un-biased knowledge of American and world history, the outcome was very revealing. A government that doesn't have a unified standing military to back its power has no dictatorial power over the citizens of the nation it governs.


The argument has been made that if Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be president, we are no longer living in a constitutional democracy, let alone in a constitutional republic. Thus, the argument leads inevitably to one conclusion:


We are effectively being ruled by a dictatorship! The social and political contracts are thus openly broken, null and void, and cannot be readily or peacefully repaired.


In such a case, the only powers left to the government are those of force and of coercion. Without a unified standing military and/or a unified and militarized police force, such a government has no effective power over the population. With the first premise in place, the second premise is one of mere historical reality.


In the un-scientific military.com poll, 37% of the respondents are currently 'uncommitted.' Once the violence begins, they will be forced to make decision. Many of them will simply desert their posts and go home, as was the case in both the Revolutionary War and The Civil War, others will leave their active-duty units, either legally or illegally, and join their home state's National Guard units or create a join ad hoc militia unit.


Before all is said and done, I think that most of that 37% will jump on the Constitutional, anti-government bandwagon. That said, a significant percentage of that same 37% probably consist of the 'don't rock the boat' personalities. Which way any of them jumps will have a bearing on the potential outcomes of any peaceful or violent conflict that will arise as a result of the first two premises.


When another civil war begins in America, expect most of the fifty states to recall their National Guard units from any deployment, providing that those units are able to arrange sufficient transportation. Those members of the regular reserves will also have some difficult choices to make.


Keep well in mind that the people who operate military.com lean well to the left of the political center. Like the Marine Corps Times, The Army Times, etc., they are privately owned and operated and their editors, their publishers, and most of their contributors, are comprised of left-leaning journalists. They alone initiated this poll about Lt. Easterling and framed the questions and bear responsibility for the results. Their questions were not based upon the known facts or upon the historical evidence, but the results are interesting, even so.


Please note that the enlisted Enlisted Military Oath of Office states:


"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey all lawful orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


While the Oath of Office for commissioned officers states:


"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


There is no legal military requirement to 'serve the nation,' nor, in the case of commissioned officers, is there any requirement to serve any sitting President.


The primary requirement in both cases is to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."


That is not only their Oath of Office that is the extent of their legal contract with the United States military and with its government.


Once the United States government has legally and Constitutionally abrogated that contract, say, in the case of an un-Constitutional presidency, the members of the military forces of America are no longer liable for the performance of their part of said contract.


Their Oath and their contract is with the Constitution of the United States of America.


Similar scenarios apply with elected politicians and other public servants who are required to take an Oath and sign a contract to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.


Their Oaths and their contracts are with the Constitution of the United States of America or with their state constitutions. Their contract is not with the government or with the people of America or with the nation as a whole. Their Oaths and their contracts are with The Constitution, alone.


Similar numbers as seen in the Lt. Easterling poll are seen in the PEW poll on political party 'self identity. I suspect the numbers for law enforcement officers and related federal and state government agencies are very similar to the military.com poll on Easterling. The pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, anti-big government numbers may be slightly higher for military Veterans.


As just one example of many historical examples, I'll now refer to breakdowns of popular political beliefs during the American Revolution. I'm fairly certain that the numbers of Tories represented in the Wikipedia account are from the end of the war, not from the beginning. Other accounts state that in the early part of the American Revolution, approximately 30% of the people of the colonies were for the revolution, 30% were against it, and about 30% were apolitical and just wanted to be left the hell alone.


The British learned, as most empires and kingdoms have learned before them, that those who wage’counter-insurgency' have a long row to hoe. If the insurgent strategy and tactics are properly implemented and with 30% of the population actively promoting the insurgent cause, with another 30% of the population remaining disengaged, the insurgent always has the advantage. General Petraeus has been the only successful counter-insurgent leader in recent history, but his success is even now being completely undone by the present America government.


This next item is where the present government of the US will make its biggest mistake in dealing with Americans: over-reaction. This is the exact opposite of a successful strategy, let alone being a dishonorable, unethical and even un-Constitutional reaction to petitions from private citizens who are being ruled by this government. Over-reaction on the part of the government, whether it involves the use of armed force or of bureaucratic regulation, always leads to the eventual defeat and/or collapse of that government. This is a historical reality. What the counter-insurgent, pro-government forces have to do in every historical case is to convince the general populace to actively engage against the insurgent force. ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") Otherwise, the only other option that remains to them is to commit genocide or to admit to defeat. Before all is said and done, the present government in the US won't be able to fully implement any of those three options. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, for at least the last fifty years, this government always over-reacts. Always.


The more they over-react, the more of the popular support they lose. Once they have less than 30% of the population ACTIVELY supporting them, they will - eventually - lose the 'counter-insurgency.'


If you are an 'insurgent,' and if 30% of the population is on your side, even if most of them are not actively engaged, and if 30% of the population just wants to stay the hell out of your way, all you have to do to defeat the counter-insurgency is to peacefully and diplomatically convince another 10%-20% of the population to either join you or to stay out of your way.


In a pro-government counter-insurgency, you need to have at least 35% of the population on your side from the beginning and to have them actively engaged in your cause. At the moment, in America, the pro-government 'counter-insurgency' does not have that kind of popular support.


At the moment, even if we ignore the above examples, an average of 60% of the population are expressing anti-government sentiments. Some polling data reveals that that 80% of the American people are expressing anti-government sentiments and have one or more reasons for having expressed that sentiment.


Even if (when) it comes to direct conflict in America resembling another civil war, I think a look at the numbers says one thing: We liberty loving' fools and 'right-wing extremists,' members of the currently peaceful 'insurgency,' have already triumphed. All we have to do is to follow through.


For the moment, that means sharing information and commentary with the people you know...and making sure that they share it with others, and so on and so on.


The 'insurgent,' always takes the moral high ground. When it comes to dealing with those who are with you, or at least, who aren't actively against you, always be a good little 'Boy Scout.' i.e. Always do the right things for the right reasons. Always engage those demographics in a positive and constructive fashion. (The violence against the populace as seen and involved in variations of The Vanguard Theory is not a viable option.)


In any case, contemporary and ancient history, as well as Game Theory, suggest that 'Boy Scouts' who are freedom-loving' fools, will - eventually - prevail over 'counter-insurgent' police states, dictators and tyrants. This is not only seen in American history, it is also apparent throughout world history.


Conclusion: The Republican Party is no less an advocate for big government than is the Democrat Party. When in power, they govern exactly like their supposed ideological opponents. Switch one party for another in the seats of government power and you achieve the exact same results. It is only a matter of degree, not of outcomes.


There is a growing majority within the American populace who are ever more aware of that fact.


It is now a binary choice. Yes/No. On/Off. One/Zero. You are either for big government and no personal freedom, or very limited personal freedom- or -You stand against the big government political class and openly promote individual freedom and liberty. That is the dividing line. Pick which side of that line you want to stand on. Logically, rationally and reasonably, there can be no middle ground. The revolution has already begun. War is no spectator’s sport!


Warren "Bones" Bonesteel Author and Researcher Sgt USMC 1976-1983 55 Crestview Drive Rapid City, SD 57701 (605) 348-2830 [email protected]



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...