> http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=138963&group=webcast > "...approximately three percent > of Americans now feel that armed struggle against the state would be > justified. > That may not sound like a lot when viewed on its own but a look at the > historical evidence provides some interesting insights. When the American > colonists declared independence in 1776 ( the actual war of > revolution had > begun a year earlier) only five percent of the two and a half million > colonists actually favored secession from the British Empire. By the time > independence had been won seven years later, nearly a third of the people > had come to favor independence with another third remaining loyal to the > crown and yet another third being neutral. Only sixty thousand persons, > about two and a half percent of the population of the colonies, actually > participated in the revolutionary effort itself...."End Extract.
And I made the comment that the kettle was boiling. *slap* but I stand by it. Hm. Looks like "Constintern" propaganda, -- again, the American Revolution. One of the marks of Revolutionary activity today is "a return to a mystic past," it has no practical significance. Our revolutionary past is romantic, but it's somewhat tactically stale. People's War -- just *some* characteristics: 1. rarely successful 2. not against native government 3. strong nationalism 4. political unification 5. intensive preparation and perception management (Perception War) 6. world-class intelligence 7. shadow government 8. extreme mobility 9. organized education 10. sanctuary, logistics & support In modern People's War, it's kind of like the quote, "the jungle is neutral," but the jungle is the people. Another quote, but I can't remember the source: "there are no non-combatants in jungle warfare." Effectives will be terrorists -- based on capability, and they will never evolve to a stage of contention. Even our structure of our government insulates us from a coup. The most important message a revolutionary has: "we can win." Somebody needs to show them: "you will LOOSE," and here's the realities, and here's the alternatives for peaceful change. And, ideally, here's something -else- for you to do and identify with, but no pressure. I would bet on some foreign connection this time. Our adversaries seek to reduce our will and capability to make war. Most agents-of-influence are unwitting, and a tour of "the files," might cause them to look behind the curtain before making a decision that could set a hook in their mouth. We need a...something that's not counterterrorism or criminal-based, but something based on research, open monitoring (not surveillance), creative outreach, deterrence.... a "soft" approach that NEVER offers the opportunity to escalate the conflict but seeks engagement (dangle-dangle), does not de-legitimize patriotic sentiments, or seek to quash dissent (it's a safety valve). If that won't sell Congress, they need another job. Revolutions require counterintelligence. That forces us to protect sources and methods -- I can argue that threat is a societal trend. It also involves military targets and sabotage, not just "terrorism." And, again, I bet on a foreign connection, if only because of our communication means. That's some big dog jurisdiction, revolutionary boys and girls, by people that have actually "done revolution." BTW, during the Red Scare, 51 percent of Americans supported jailing Communists outright. ~Aimee For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. ~Sun Tzu
