The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against
another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change.
However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by
elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might
not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late.
Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between
individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out:
“What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am
not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the
information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the
psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright
warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has
no clue what real war looks like.
The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made
many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises
have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real
crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond
government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least,
we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment
and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment
plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for
military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another
program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is
essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to
plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what
“HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise
explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis
situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This
fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense
that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare
military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade
Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats),
rather than foreign operations.
Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations
forces ALWAYS train like they fight and train in environments similar
to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a
preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations
forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training
grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort
Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is
no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere
exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.
I would further note that Jade Helm exercises are also joint
exercises with domestic agencies like the FBI and the DEA. Again, why
include domestic law enforcement agencies in a military exercise merely
meant to prepare troops for foreign operations? I often hear the
argument that the military would never go along with such a program, but
people who take this rather presumptive position do not understand
crisis psychology. In the event of a national catastrophe many military
personnel and government employees may determine that they will do what
is "best for them and their families". And if following orders
guarantees the security of their families (food security, shelter, etc),
then they may very well follow any order, no matter how dubious. Also,
a large scale crisis could be used as a rationale for martial law;
otherwise well meaning military men and women could be convinced that
the loss of constitutional freedoms might be for the "greater good of
the greater number". I believe some military will indeed resist such
efforts, but of course, Jade Helm may also be a method for vetting such
uncooperative people before any live operation occurs.
So if Jade is actually a crisis-planning system for the military and
the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it
is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down
to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so
weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror
attacks, cyberattacks, pandemic, a stiff wind, you name it. The point
is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of
this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.
Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event,
opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on
the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation
on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior
fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.
I would first point out that Boot claims his work is merely a
historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of
insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid
that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to
the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were
obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of
counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for
controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”
Any defense the American people might muster against elitist
dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to
"insurgency". So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a
guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage open war on
those within the American population who have the will to fight back.
Control Public Opinion
Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public
opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually
quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of
guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in
part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a supposed
prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers,
claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and
King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.
Now, it is important to recognize that elitists have a recurring
tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in
particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of
course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far
longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership
suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the
fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories
loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was
NEVER in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the
revolutionaries’ side.
The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the
collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make
inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions,
even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of
their life spans. The majority of people do not participate in
history. Rather, they have a tendency to float helplessly in the tides,
waiting to latch onto whatever minority movement seems to be winning at
the time.
Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire
rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the
rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no
concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of
the elitist.
For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with
carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with
public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public
opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as
viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in
particular, create a wash of other potential threats, including high
crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such
an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even
pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once
this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally
questionable actions without fear of future blowback.
Control The Public
Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating
insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent
a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from
using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public
does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but
dominating through tactical and psychological means.
He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in
Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while
“morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and
destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong,
however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot
once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the
eventual loss of Algeria by the French.
What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is
viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains
undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in
his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when
he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by
inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that
mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.
Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British
success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win
against the rebellion to three factors:
1) The British separated large portions of the population,
entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and
armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more
downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas
where they could be more easily engaged.
2) The British used special operations forces to target
specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver
through vast areas in a pointless Vietnam-style surge.
3) The British made promises that appealed to the general
public, including the promise of independence. This made the public
more pliable and more willing to cooperate.
Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer
the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a
patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps
more enticing: safety.
I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the
main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event
that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against planned shifts away from
constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a
national emergency.
Isolate Population Centers
There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in
technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I
think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could
be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be
tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food,
shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster
has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of
medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of
people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of
receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in
rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to
concentrate into controlled regions.
I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the G20
summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops
locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The
first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so
frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave
their homes. This is the closest example I have personally experienced
to a martial law cityscape.
Decapitate Leadership
The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which
makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less effective. I do
not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing
prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will
not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers,
not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave all their
teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The
movement would not necessarily be lost without us.
That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The
black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into
submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for
individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take
individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if
the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national
centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.
According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training
will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter
support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every
combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has
said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of
high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a
response.
Fourth-Generation Warfare
The final method for war against the American people is one Boot
does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this
psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation
warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to
control is turned against another section of the population you wish to
control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather,
the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal
war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy
developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and
the militarization of police.
The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson,
Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater
plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false
sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but
poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set
up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be
used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but
in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other
while the elites sit back and watch the show.
4th Gen warfare also relies on fooling the target population into
supporting measures that are secretly destructive to the people. For
example, liberty movement support for controlled opposition such as
Russia or China, or liberty support for a military coup in which the top
brass are elite puppets just like the Obama Administration. Think this
sounds far fetched? It has already happened in our recent history!
Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was hired by corporate moguls
to lead a paid army in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (also an
elitist puppet) in 1933. Butler luckily exposed the conspiracy before
it ever got off the ground. Both sides were controlled, but the coup if
successful could have resulted in popular support for the expedient
erosion of the Constitution, rather than a slow erosion which is what
took place. This is the epitome of 4th Gen tactics - make the people
think they are winning, when they are actually helping you to defeat
them.
Know Thy Enemy
I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think
they will prevail, but because it is important that we know exactly
what we are dealing with in order to better defend ourselves. Such
methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of
central leadership, the application of random actions rather than
predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to
provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around
them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the
population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the
elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that
they may use that weapon in the near term. The defense that defeats
crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for
others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact
timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as
quickly as possible.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
brandon@alt-market.com
No comments:
Post a Comment