8. Possibilities of Revolution, Civil War or Collapse?

Possibilities of Revolution, Civil War, or Collapse?

( … )

What A Collapse Will Look Like

( … )

What a Victory of the Left Will Look Like

( … )

Paint the “Scary Picture” – What Does Real Civil War Look Like?

( … )

The Most Likely Means of Conflict, and Conflict Escalation

Revolutions that begin with house-to-house violence are often among the more violent and chaotic upheavals, typically characterized by deep-seated grievances, sharp divisions within society, and sometimes sectarian or ideological extremism. Such violence may not always be the initial spark of a revolution, but it can quickly become a defining characteristic as conflicts escalate. Here are a few historical examples where revolutions or similar upheavals involved this level of violence:

1. Russian Revolution (1917-1922):

   • While the initial phases of the Russian Revolution in 1917 involved relatively less violence, the subsequent civil war saw intense and brutal conflict, including violence against civilians and house-to-house fighting, especially during the Red Terror and White Terror phases. Bolshevik forces frequently engaged in direct assaults on perceived enemies, including door-to-door searches and executions.

2. Spanish Civil War (1936-1939):

   • The Spanish Civil War began with a military coup but quickly escalated into a full-scale civil war that included significant violence against civilians by both Nationalist and Republican sides. This period saw massacres, assassinations, and reprisals that included targeted violence in communities against perceived political opponents.

3. Rwandan Genocide (1994):

   • Although not a revolution in the traditional sense, the Rwandan Genocide featured the rapid escalation of violence that involved militias conducting house-to-house searches to kill Tutsi and moderate Hutu civilians. The violence was highly organized and spurred by deep-seated ethnic divisions and political conflict.

4. Syrian Civil War (2011-present):

   • The Syrian conflict began with peaceful protests but escalated into a civil war that has included significant instances of house-to-house violence, particularly in cities like Homs and Aleppo. Various factions, including the Syrian government, rebel groups, and later ISIS, have been involved in intense urban combat and violence against civilians.

5. Libyan Civil War (2011):

   • The revolution against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya escalated quickly from protests to armed conflict. Towns and cities experienced brutal fighting, including house-to-house battles, as rebels clashed with loyalist forces. The conflict was marked by significant civilian suffering and widespread destruction.

In these cases, the initial violence often set the stage for broader conflicts, drawing in various societal groups and external actors, which further escalated the violence. House-to-house violence in these contexts is typically a symptom of deep societal fractures and a breakdown of state control, leading to prolonged and destructive conflicts. Such scenarios underscore the importance of early intervention and conflict resolution efforts to prevent escalation and reduce civilian harm.

A Revolution Is Better – But A Revolution Against Whom?

1. Who is the enemy?
2. The Enemy’s Position, Strategy, and Resources
   1. Draw Material from “the Conflict” and “the Choice” Podcast Series
   2. Analysis of The Problem
   3. How the Problem Could Play Out
3. Possible Strategies for the Course and Conduct of a Civil War
4. Recommended Strategy

( … )

Who Is The Enemy?

• (a) The enemy is the talking classes that comprise The Cathedral: the financial sector, the academic sector, the education sector, the public intellectual sector, the media sector, and the political sector, all of whom exit the market in order to prey upon those who survive by the market – and who sell false promises and deceits to those within the market, that all of us an escape the market – rather than it is the market by those within it that makes their parasitic escape from the market possible. We learned with ‘necessary workers’ were and they did not wear white collars.
• (a) the useful idiots on the left are not wrong in that they’re aggrieved, but they are intuitionistically disadvantaged by feminine bias, and wrong in what to do about it. (appeal to them – even if they cannot have equal status they can have respect which is enough.)
• (b) the left makes use of what are largely criminals hiding under cover of political activism. (What to do about them? Agree with them. Sympathize with them. Disempower them. Redirect their anger to the cathedral.)
• (c) the left makes use of these malcontents, pretends they are not criminals, claims they are oppressed, and uses them to bait you into the hazard of prosecuting them, and thus licensing the enemy to prosecute you.  As such, the useful idiots and criminals are not the enemy, but bait that the enemy uses to justify use of force against you. 
• (e) So name, label, define, describe, and blame the enemy, and explain how you will stop their criminality and end their parasitism.
• (f) and if possible, if they resist, claim you will perform restitution to the people by the seizure of ill gotten assets by fraud from the population.

The Enemy’s Position, Strategy, and Resources

( … )

Divide and Conquer, by Baiting into Hazard, Generating Demand for their Authority, Enabling their Parasitism, decay, decline, and collapse. The same strategy they used to destroy the great civilizations of the ancient world, including european, and the strategy they are still trying to use in the modern world to destroy remaining civilizations.  With only the west resisting.

Strategies for the Course and Conduct of a Revolution and Restoration

Success Criteria For A Revolution

1. Legitimacy and Moral Authority:

   • Revolutionaries often strive to establish a moral high ground, positioning their cause as just and the existing regime as illegitimate or corrupt. This moral authority is crucial for garnering wide-ranging domestic and international support. It’s also critical for reducing resistance.

2. Broad Coalition Building:

   • Successful revolutions typically involve forming broad coalitions that transcend social, economic, and sometimes ethnic and religious divides. Unity among diverse groups increases the movement’s strength and base of support.

3. Effective Communication and Propaganda:

   • Controlling the narrative through effective communication strategies and propaganda is vital. Revolutionaries need to disseminate their message, goals, and calls to action effectively to rally support and counter the regime’s narrative.

4. Sustainable Organizational Structure:

   • Having a robust organizational structure that can withstand pressures from the existing regime is essential. This includes having clear leadership, logistical support, and contingency plans.

5. Strategic Use of Nonviolence and/or Violence:

   • The choice between nonviolent methods and armed struggle is crucial, depending on the context. Some revolutions, like those influenced by Gene Sharp’s theories, emphasize nonviolent resistance, while others may see armed struggle as necessary.

6. International Support:

   • Gaining support from foreign governments, diasporas, international organizations, or sympathetic groups can provide crucial resources, legitimacy, and pressure against the regime.

7. Persistence and Adaptability:

   • Revolutions rarely succeed quickly and often face setbacks. Persistence and the ability to adapt strategies in response to changing circumstances are crucial.

8. Winning the Middle Ground:

   • Winning over the uncommitted middle—the larger body of the public that may initially be neutral or passive—is crucial for achieving a critical mass of support that can tip the balance against the regime.

9. Undermining the Existing Power Structure:

   • Effective strategies often involve eroding the regime’s power base, including encouraging defections within its security forces, bureaucracy, and elite circles.

10. Preparation for Governance (Governing itself):

    • Revolutionaries must also prepare for the post-revolution phase, planning how to govern effectively and implement the changes for which they have advocated. This foresight can prevent post-revolution chaos and loss of support.
      
      
11. Knowing what to do with displaced elites (vs eliminating or exporting them)
    1. In a successful revolution that is caused in no small part by a surplus of elites under Turchin’s thesis, causing a ‘wealth pump’ that extracts from the working classes to the elite classes, what can be done with the displaced elites? In my work I suggest decentralization to the states will absorb some of the supply, but if we look at all the sectors of the ‘cathedral complex’ that engages in parasitism by false promise, baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, that include academy, education, public intellectuals, the media, the state, and the financial sector, then eradicating the capacity for false promise fraud and irreciprocity will displace a large number of people from thse parasitic fields. How can they be put to use? Or was the french guillotine, the english export to colonies, or the russian use of war, or the church’s use of crusades by literally killing off these want-to-be elites the only choice?

        

       ChatGPT said:

        

       Addressing the problem of elite surplus and the resulting social issues we’ve identified involves managing both the structural economic roles these elites occupy and the socio-political tensions they generate. The challenge is finding a solution that integrates these individuals productively into society without exacerbating existing problems like economic extraction and social stratification.

       Possible Strategies for Managing Displaced Elites

       1. Reform and Regulation of Key Sectors:

          • Tightening regulations in industries prone to parasitism, such as finance and media, can help reduce the opportunities for rent-seeking and unethical behavior. This can redirect efforts towards more productive, socially beneficial activities within these sectors.

       2. Education and Retraining Programs:

          • Implementing comprehensive retraining and education programs can transition displaced elites into emerging sectors that contribute more directly to the economy. This could include areas like technology, green energy, or healthcare, which are less susceptible to the kinds of parasitic behaviors seen in the ‘cathedral complex’.

       3. Promotion of Entrepreneurship and Innovation:

          • Encouraging entrepreneurial ventures with incentives and support can absorb some of the intellectual and creative capacities of these elites. This can lead to the development of new industries and revitalization of local economies, particularly outside major urban centers.

       4. Decentralization and Local Governance:

          • As we mentioned, decentralization can help by distributing political power and administrative responsibilities more evenly across regions, potentially absorbing some elite capacity in local governance and community-based projects.

       5. Public Service and Social Enterprises:

          • Redirecting elite talent towards public service and social enterprises can utilize their skills for community improvement and social welfare projects, aligning personal ambitions with public goods.

       6. Voluntary and Phased Downsizing:

          • Incentivizing voluntary exit from saturated sectors, possibly through phased retirement plans or severance packages that encourage a shift towards less disruptive roles or retirement.

       Historical and Ethical Considerations

       The historical methods we’ve mentioned—like the guillotine, colonization, wars, and crusades—represent extreme and often violent redistributions of elite populations. These methods have profound ethical implications and long-term social consequences that can destabilize societies and perpetuate cycles of violence and retribution.

       A modern approach should ideally focus on integration and transformation rather than exclusion or elimination. This involves creating pathways for elites to contribute positively to society without resorting to the destructive behaviors fostered by unchecked competition for limited elite positions. The goal would be to create a sustainable model that not only addresses the immediate problems of elite surplus but also fosters a more equitable and resilient society.

       These strategies, while challenging to implement, could potentially offer a more humane and constructive solution to the problem of surplus elites, turning a potentially destabilizing force into a catalyst for innovation and social progress.

Failure Scenarios for a U.S. Revolution

( … )

Potential Success Strategies for U.S. Revolution 

• Delegitimization Through Communication:
  • The greatest opportunity for change lies in delegitimizing the government through the use of industrialized communication, amplifying the moral and economic demands of the majority while exposing the privileged nature of elites.
  • Media manipulation could work both ways, but if managed correctly, it would create massive public pressure for the government to address fundamental grievances.
• Nonviolent Escalation:
  • Mass mobilizations similar to the Maidan revolution in Ukraine could form the basis for a successful U.S. revolution. The key would be sustained peaceful protests, combined with media pressure, targeting corruption, inequality, and elite control.
  • The government would face significant pressure to capitulate or face global criticism for resisting legitimate moral demands.
• Localized Conflict Escalation:
  • While nonviolent escalation is more likely, localized guerrilla movements could use rural areas as bases of operation, attempting to disrupt urban elites or central governance.
  • Military suppression of these localized conflicts could trigger wider unrest, especially if public opinion sides with the insurgents.

Necessary Strategy and Tactics or a Successful Revolution

1. Strategy is to Hold The Moral High Ground while undermining the legitimacy of the network of organized crime against the people.
2. Every high level action should raise awareness of our solutions, their benefits to the majority, and the moral basis of them in the suppression of criminality under pretense of virtue.
3. Every medium-high should to seek to build and maintain Distributed and Redundant Leadership, Cohesion despite Factions, Disengagement with and suppression of near neighbors with foolish and impossible fantasies and ambitions.
4. Every medium level action should seek to over the resources of the opposition.
5. Every low level action should seek to Prosecution of ‘criminals’ and not ‘innocents’.

This outlines the U.S.-specific analysis, focusing on the most likely forms of conflict and revolution, how regional, ideological, and ethnic factors play a role, and the strategies that might lead to escalation. 

What about Mao, Isis, and the IRA?

Next, let’s consider the strategy of ‘accumulating forces via mobility’ such as the approach of Mao in china (using rural against urban) and ISIS (using small highly mobile forces that destroy key infrastructure, deplete banks, take hostages, supply themselves by raiding, and ‘compensating’ participants (wealthy) during those raids. Would either of those strategies or a combination of them be able to take foothold in aggrieved regions?

The strategies of “accumulating forces via mobility” used by Mao in China (leveraging rural populations against urban centers) and ISIS (small, highly mobile forces engaging in infrastructure destruction, raids, and decentralized control) could, in theory, take foothold in aggrieved regions within the U.S., but several key factors would determine their feasibility and effectiveness.

Maoist Strategy (Rural Against Urban)

• Applicability:

  • Rural vs. Urban Divide: The U.S. does have a pronounced cultural, political, and economic divide between rural and urban areas, which could be exploited by movements that target rural discontent and leverage these populations against urban political centers. The rural-urban divide often aligns with ideological divides, with rural areas being more conservative and urban centers leaning liberal.
  • Building Support in Rural Areas: A movement that capitalizes on rural grievances—such as economic hardship, opposition to federal policies (e.g., gun control, environmental regulation), or a perceived loss of traditional values—could mobilize significant support. By focusing on regions where state control is weaker and local governance is more autonomous, such a movement could grow its base without facing immediate, concentrated state repression.
  • Challenges: Unlike Maoist China, the U.S. has a much higher level of institutional control, infrastructure, and surveillance even in rural areas, making it harder for such a strategy to operate without detection or suppression. Furthermore, the economic integration between rural and urban areas, along with transportation and communication technologies, means rural areas are not as isolated as they were in Mao’s time.

• Conclusion: While a Maoist strategy could theoretically find traction in rural parts of the U.S., especially where grievances are high, the state’s ability to detect and respond to organized movements is significantly stronger than in Maoist China, making it a much harder strategy to sustain.

ISIS Strategy (Small Mobile Forces)

• Applicability:

  • Infrastructure Targeting: The strategy of small, mobile forces targeting key infrastructure (power grids, communication networks, transportation hubs) could be more viable in the U.S., especially in regions where public infrastructure is vulnerable. The sheer scale and complexity of U.S. infrastructure, coupled with the possibility of cyberattacks, could create chaos in targeted areas if forces were well-coordinated and operated under the radar.
  • Hostage Taking and Raids: In highly localized, aggrieved regions, such as areas with militia movements or separatist tendencies, a strategy involving raids and hostage-taking could find foothold. The U.S. has a significant number of lightly populated rural areas, particularly in the West, where law enforcement presence is minimal, making these regions more vulnerable to hit-and-run tactics.
  • Self-Supply via Raiding: Movements in the U.S. would need to raid infrastructure or financial assets to sustain themselves, as ISIS did by depleting banks and taking over oil fields. While bank and supply chain raids could occur, the U.S.’s economic and military capacity to respond to such movements, particularly its rapid deployment capabilities and surveillance infrastructure, would be formidable obstacles.
  • Challenges: The U.S. has a much higher capacity for immediate military and law enforcement response, including drones, intelligence networks, and National Guard units that could suppress small mobile forces quickly. The state’s ability to mobilize in response to such groups far surpasses that of regions where ISIS operated, where state control was fragmented or absent.

• Conclusion: An ISIS-style strategy could be effective in the short term in certain rural areas with weak infrastructure or law enforcement, but it would face significant challenges from the U.S. government’s rapid and coordinated response capabilities. Small mobile forces would find it difficult to operate over long periods without being neutralized by state actors.

IRA Strategy (Urban and Rural Guerrilla Tactics)

Applicability:

• Urban and Rural Divide: The IRA strategy relies heavily on urban guerrilla warfare, including bombings, assassinations, and sabotage within cities, while also leveraging rural support networks. In the U.S., the strategy could theoretically exploit both urban centers and rural areas where discontent exists. Urban guerrilla tactics could be used to target symbolic or strategic locations, while rural areas could serve as safe havens for organizing and planning.

• Targeting Key Infrastructure: The IRA’s method of attacking key infrastructure and disrupting normal life could be applied in the U.S. context by targeting urban infrastructure, such as transportation hubs, communication networks, or financial institutions. In rural areas, such attacks could include pipelines, power grids, or transport lines connecting rural areas to urban centers. This approach could inflict costs on both urban elites and the broader population, forcing the state to respond while attempting to maintain control.

• Political Negotiation and Insurgency: Like the IRA, a similar movement in the U.S. might aim to combine political negotiations with continued insurgent activities. Political parties or factions could use violence as leverage to gain concessions from the state, just as Sinn Féin worked in tandem with the IRA to push for political gains while insurgent violence continued.

• Challenges: The modern surveillance state and counterterrorism measures in the U.S. make urban guerrilla tactics far more difficult to execute without quick detection. Additionally, the U.S. federal government’s capacity to deploy military force and implement security measures at a national level is considerably stronger than the British response in Northern Ireland, limiting the effectiveness of such a strategy. Public opinion in the U.S. may also be less tolerant of sustained violent tactics, reducing popular support.

• A General Staff Supplying Cheap Simple Effective Tactics
  ( … ) (See my earlier work)

Conclusion: While the IRA strategy of combining urban guerrilla warfare and rural insurgency could find some applicability in the U.S. under conditions of high unrest, the challenges posed by modern surveillance, counterterrorism efforts, and the state’s capacity to suppress violent movements make it less likely to achieve sustained success without significant popular support. Moreover, the potential backlash from urban populations, who would bear the brunt of urban guerrilla tactics, could limit the effectiveness of such a strategy.

• Key Elements:
  • The IRA strategy combines urban guerrilla warfare with rural insurgency, focusing on hit-and-run tactics, bombings, and targeted assassinations to create disorder and instability. The strategy also relies heavily on political mobilization and negotiation as part of its broader revolutionary goals.
  • The IRA targeted both military and civilian infrastructure, with the aim of making it costly for the British government to maintain control over Northern Ireland. The use of covert cells in urban areas allowed the IRA to carry out attacks while minimizing risk to their operatives.
• Historical Example: The Troubles in Northern Ireland (1960s-1998), where the IRA (Irish Republican Army) fought for the unification of Ireland. The IRA used a combination of terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and political negotiations through Sinn Féin to keep pressure on the British government while rallying support from the Irish nationalist community.
• Application: The IRA strategy works in contexts where an insurgent group cannot directly face the state militarily but can apply consistent, low-level violence to weaken the state’s resolve and eventually force negotiations. It requires urban cells for covert actions and rural networks to maintain guerrilla forces, with heavy reliance on local support.

Combination of Maoist, ISIS, and IRA Strategies

• Applicability:

  • Rural Insurgency with Mobile Tactics: A combination of the two strategies, where a movement builds support in rural areas and then uses highly mobile forces to carry out attacks on urban infrastructure, could be more feasible. Rural areas could provide safe havens and supply chains, while mobile groups target strategic assets in urban areas, forcing the state to overstretch its resources.
  • Support from Local Populations: In regions where distrust of federal authority is already high (e.g., parts of the rural South or West), movements using this combined strategy could find logistical and material support from the local population, further enabling their mobility and resilience.
  • Challenges: The key challenge for any such movement would be avoiding detection and neutralization by the state’s surveillance and intelligence apparatus, which is far more advanced than during Mao’s or ISIS’s time. Additionally, movements in the U.S. would face internal factionalism, especially along ethnic and ideological lines, which could prevent unified action.

• Conclusion: A combined strategy could allow for localized insurgency movements in rural areas, supported by mobile forces targeting urban infrastructure. However, the state’s rapid response capabilities and surveillance would present serious obstacles to the long-term success of such a movement. Local support might be strong in certain areas, but overall, the strategy would likely face internal challenges and external repression.

Overall Feasibility in Aggrieved Regions:

While rural regions with high levels of discontent could potentially serve as breeding grounds for movements utilizing these strategies, the ability of such movements to gain and sustain footholds would be limited by several factors:

• State Capacity: The U.S. has one of the world’s most advanced surveillance, law enforcement, and military infrastructures. Movements based on mobility and guerrilla tactics could operate in localized areas for short periods, but the state’s capacity to suppress them would be formidable.
• Fragmentation: Unlike Mao’s rural support base, U.S. regions are far more fragmented ideologically, ethnically, and geographically. This fragmentation could hinder the formation of a broad-based revolutionary movement, particularly in areas where grievances differ significantly (e.g., rural vs. urban, North vs. South).
• Technological Surveillance: Modern surveillance, drone warfare, and cyber capabilities give the state unprecedented power to track and neutralize insurgent groups quickly, reducing the potential success of these strategies.

Final Assessment:

Localized, short-term success in implementing either Maoist or ISIS strategies is possible in highly aggrieved, rural regions of the U.S., particularly where there is low law enforcement presence and strong anti-government sentiment. However, the long-term viability of such strategies would be severely constrained by the U.S. state’s ability to rapidly respond, suppress, and dismantle such movements using modern military, intelligence, and surveillance capabilities. These strategies could cause temporary disruptions but are unlikely to achieve sustained footholds.

The Civil Rights Movement’s Success and Timeline

• Moral High Ground: The Civil Rights Movement succeeded, in part, because it held the clear moral high ground in the public’s view and leveraged nonviolent tactics that exposed the brutality and injustice of segregation to a broad audience. Media coverage (TV and print) played a significant role in quickly galvanizing public opinion, pressuring the government to act within weeks during pivotal moments.
• Unifying Message: The movement’s demands were focused and clear: equal rights and an end to segregation, which could easily be understood and supported by large segments of the population, including the government’s own security apparatus.
• Rapid Concessions: By appealing to fundamental American values (equality, justice) and maintaining strict nonviolence, the movement’s leaders made it difficult for the government to resist without suffering serious moral and political damage.

Key Differences in Today’s Landscape

• Fragmented Media and Messaging: Unlike the 1960s, the media landscape today is highly fragmented, with traditional outlets competing against social media, alternative news, and various ideological echo chambers. While this offers the opportunity to reach a wide audience, it also makes it more difficult to control the narrative. Different segments of the population will perceive the movement differently, depending on how the media frames it.
• Polarization and Tribalism: The U.S. is far more politically and culturally polarized today. While this strategy aims to unite the majority against a small elite class, there is a risk that different factions of the population will view the movement through their own ideological lenses. Some may see the movement as a legitimate fight against corruption, while others could perceive it as an attack on their values or institutions, depending on how the demands are framed.
• Stronger Elite Countermeasures: The elite classes (political, financial, media) have far more sophisticated tools of information control today, from public relations firms to social media manipulation (bots, disinformation campaigns). They are better equipped to counter popular movements through narrative control, co-optation, or even legal maneuvers that undermine the movement without necessarily resorting to violence.

Repeating the Maidan Revolution

Next, what about repeating the Maidan revolution, issuing demands that benefit the population while disempowering the political, financial, academic, and media elites, showing up with 5 million or more people, and using the attention generated by the conflict to repeat demands daily, while seeking to inspire local groups to act against these same elites – right in their homes or places of work. (I was in the kiev during maydan revolution. This is what we did.) This means relatively peaceful and long term action in Washington DC which serves as a vehicle for inspiration of those NOT in washington DC. and when combined with a set of demands that serve the interests of the majority at the expense of ‘privileged’ elites (even if they don’t know they’re privileged).

Repeating a strategy similar to the Maidan Revolution in Washington, D.C., with a focus on relatively peaceful but highly disruptive long-term action, could theoretically be an effective method of catalyzing political and social change by exploiting the attention generated through mass mobilization and pressure on elites. Here’s an analysis of how this approach might work in the U.S., its potential challenges, and its likely outcomes.

Key Elements of the Strategy

• Mass Mobilization: Gathering 5 million or more people in Washington, D.C., would create an enormous and sustained spectacle that would be hard for media and elites to ignore. Such large numbers would also increase the logistical challenge for the government in controlling the protests and limit the effectiveness of any attempts to suppress or disperse them.

• Daily Repeated Demands: By issuing clear, populist demands that focus on disempowering political, financial, academic, and media elites—while benefiting the majority—this strategy would create a sustained narrative that pressures elites while keeping the movement relevant in the public discourse.

• Symbolic and Physical Occupation: A long-term occupation in Washington, D.C., with daily rallies, protests, and sit-ins would serve as the focal point. The symbolic power of occupying the capital would be significant, and the media attention would amplify the movement’s demands nationwide.

• Local Group Activation: By inspiring local groups to act against elites in their own communities—whether at elites’ homes or workplaces—the movement would decentralize its pressure. This multi-front approach would prevent elites from easily insulating themselves from public pressure, while also engaging local communities in the larger cause.

• Populist Demands for the Majority: The demands would need to address issues that resonate with a broad segment of the population, including economic inequality, corporate corruption, governmental overreach, and media manipulation. Even if people don’t fully recognize their privileged status, presenting the demands as a way to empower the majority against a small, privileged elite could unify diverse factions.

Feasibility in the U.S. Context

• Historical Precedent: Large-scale, peaceful protests in the U.S., such as the Civil Rights Movement, the March on Washington (1963), and more recently the Women’s March (2017), have demonstrated the ability of mass mobilizations to influence political discourse and policy. However, unlike Maidan, U.S. protests have not typically sustained the same level of prolonged, disruptive occupation.

• Potential for Mass Mobilization: Achieving 5 million participants in Washington, D.C., would require significant organizational capacity. However, given the polarization in the U.S. and widespread dissatisfaction with elites across the political spectrum (left and right), there is a significant potential base for mobilization. The key challenge would be to create a unifying narrative that transcends partisan divides and appeals to the majority.

• Attention and Media Control: In the U.S., the media is more fragmented than it was in Ukraine during Maidan. Legacy media, alternative media, and social media platforms each cater to different audiences, which can both help and hinder the movement. While the movement could gain visibility through alternative and social media, mainstream media may attempt to downplay or mischaracterize the protests. Careful media strategy would be essential to maintain control over the movement’s narrative and avoid marginalization or misrepresentation.

• Local Activation: Encouraging local action against elites in their homes or places of work would decentralize the pressure, making it harder for elites to isolate the movement to Washington, D.C. By inspiring people across the country to challenge political and financial elites at the local level, the movement could create a multi-front pressure campaign that disrupts the daily lives of the elite class. However, this carries the risk of escalation if protests at homes or workplaces become confrontational.

Strengths of the Strategy

• Broad-Based Appeal: By focusing on demands that benefit the majority at the expense of a small elite class, this strategy could unite diverse segments of society—left, right, and center—around a common populist agenda. Economic inequality, corruption, and elite control of political systems are grievances shared across the ideological spectrum, making it possible to build a cross-partisan coalition.

• High Visibility and Symbolic Power: Occupying Washington, D.C., and maintaining a long-term, peaceful presence would be a powerful symbol of resistance. Combined with decentralized local actions, this would make it hard for elites to ignore the movement or dismiss it as fringe or insignificant.

• Sustained Pressure on Elites: By continuously repeating demands, the movement would avoid the common pitfall of losing momentum after initial protests. The ability to adapt and escalate demands as the movement grows would ensure sustained pressure on elites, especially as they face disruptions at both national and local levels.

Challenges and Risks

• State Response: The U.S. government’s response could be significantly more forceful than what was seen during Maidan, particularly if authorities perceive the protests as a threat to national security or if local actions against elites are seen as harassment or violence. The state could invoke emergency powers, deploy federal forces, or use other legal tools to suppress the movement.

• Media Manipulation: The media elites targeted by the movement could use their platforms to discredit the protests, portray them as extremist, or frame the protests as an unjustified attack on democratic institutions. Controlling the narrative would be crucial to avoid being painted as a fringe or violent movement.

• Factionalization and Escalation: The movement could fracture along ideological, ethnic, or regional lines, especially if different factions have divergent ideas about how far to push or what specific goals to prioritize. There is also the risk of escalation if local actions against elites become confrontational, which could lead to violence or a loss of public support.

• Sustaining the Movement: Maintaining 5 million participants in Washington, D.C., over an extended period would require significant logistical planning and resources. The longer the occupation continues, the harder it becomes to sustain, and there is a risk that the movement could fizzle out without achieving its demands. Support from local populations would be critical to keeping the movement alive.

Likely Outcomes

• Short-Term Impact: In the short term, this strategy could generate enormous attention and potentially force elites to address some of the movement’s demands. The sheer size of the protests and their symbolic power would make it difficult for political, financial, and media elites to ignore the movement without offering some concessions.

• Long-Term Impact: If the movement can sustain itself and maintain a broad, populist coalition, it could lead to significant political and economic reforms, particularly if it inspires parallel movements across the country. However, the risk of suppression, co-optation, or factionalization is high, and the movement would need to adapt quickly to survive these challenges.

• Influence Beyond Washington: The key strength of this strategy lies in its ability to inspire local actions that extend beyond Washington, D.C. By encouraging decentralized efforts to challenge elites in local communities, the movement could create a national wave of populist activism, amplifying its impact and making it harder for elites to isolate or suppress the movement.

Conclusion

Repeating a Maidan-style revolution in Washington, D.C., with a focus on peaceful but highly disruptive and long-term action, could be a powerful strategy for challenging the political, financial, academic, and media elites in the U.S. However, it would face significant challenges, including media manipulation, state repression, and internal factionalization. The key to success would be maintaining a broad coalition, controlling the narrative, and using decentralized local actions to keep up pressure on elites across the country.

This approach would likely generate significant attention and force elites to address some demands, but it would require careful strategy and strong organizational capacity to avoid falling victim to suppression or internal fragmentation.

Easiest IRA, Most Leverage Secession and Disintigration threat.  Recommended is following the founders prescription – beause it’s legitimate and legal.

( … )

Recommended: Following The Strategy of the founders, then maydan, then escalation.

( … )

Incremental Escalation: Combining Them All -Maydan then Shift To Action

If a movement involving 5 million protesters in Washington, D.C. failed to maintain supply and logistical support over the long term (e.g., 90 days) and decided to go “on the road” using a strategy similar to ISIS—targeting key infrastructure, using mobile tactics, and disrupting local elites—this would drastically escalate the situation. Here’s a breakdown of what could happen:

1. Initial Impact of the Transition

• Increased Disruption: Taking the movement on the road with a mobile, decentralized strategy would likely cause widespread chaos across multiple regions. This would not only disrupt local infrastructure (power grids, transportation, etc.) but also overwhelm local law enforcement and government agencies, creating pockets of instability across the country.
• Mobilizing Local Grievances: As the movement moves from region to region, it could capitalize on local grievances, drawing support from various disenfranchised groups. This would amplify the disruption and potentially lead to small, localized conflicts, mirroring the ISIS strategy of creating chaos and then exploiting the resulting power vacuum.

2. Legitimacy and Government Response

• Loss of Government Legitimacy: As we pointed out from our experience in Maidan, the minute the government fires on the population, its legitimacy is severely compromised. If the government resorts to violent repression—especially against such a large number of people—it could spark widespread outrage and further mobilize resistance. Violent state responses tend to delegitimize the government, leading to increased sympathy for the movement.
• Escalation of State Violence: On the other hand, if the movement adopts mobile, insurgent tactics that target infrastructure and potentially take hostages, the government may be compelled to escalate its use of force to maintain order. The state could declare martial law, mobilize the National Guard, or deploy the military to suppress the movement. This would create a highly volatile situation, with the risk of further delegitimization if state violence is seen as disproportionate or unjust.

3. Fragmentation and Regional Conflicts

• Localized Rebellion: As the movement disperses and disrupts local elites, different regions might experience varying levels of unrest. Some areas, particularly those with strong anti-government sentiment or high levels of economic inequality, could see localized uprisings that compound the disruption caused by the mobile movement.
• State and Federal Response: States might start acting independently of federal authority, especially in areas where local governments sympathize with the protesters or have their own grievances with federal policies. This could lead to a breakdown of federal control in certain regions, resulting in a patchwork of conflicts rather than a unified national rebellion.

4. Risks of Factionalization

• Internal Divisions: A movement of 5 million people is not monolithic. As it moves and adopts a more aggressive strategy, internal divisions could emerge. Some factions may favor continued peaceful protest, while others may support more extreme tactics, leading to splits within the movement. The diversity of motivations—ideological, ethnic, regional—within the group could fracture the unity that existed during the original protest in Washington, D.C.
• Loss of Public Support: The transition to a more aggressive, mobile strategy could alienate portions of the public that sympathized with the original protest but are uncomfortable with violent or destructive tactics. This shift could erode public support and make it harder for the movement to maintain its legitimacy, especially if violence escalates.

5. Potential Outcomes

• Government Capitulation: If the government remains unable to suppress the mobile movement and local uprisings continue to grow, there is a possibility of capitulation. This could take the form of negotiations with movement leaders or concessions on key demands, as the state seeks to restore order.
• Severe Crackdown: Conversely, if the government can mobilize overwhelming force to contain or suppress the movement, it might lead to a severe crackdown. This would likely result in mass arrests, the use of military force, and possibly the imposition of martial law in regions most affected by unrest.
• Civil Conflict: In the most extreme scenario, if regional uprisings spread and the government’s legitimacy continues to erode, the U.S. could descend into civil conflict. This would involve regional governments, local militias, and various factions vying for control, much like what happens in fragmented states during civil wars. The decentralized nature of the conflict would make it difficult for any one side to establish order, potentially leading to a prolonged period of instability.

6. Conclusion: Escalating Consequences

• The strategy of taking 5 million people “on the road” using a mobile, disruptive approach similar to ISIS would likely escalate the situation dramatically, leading to either severe government repression or widespread local conflict. The state’s use of force could delegitimize the government, but the movement itself would face significant challenges, including the risk of factionalization and loss of public support.
• While such a strategy could force the government to capitulate in some form, it would carry enormous risks of creating widespread instability, potentially leading to a civil conflict scenario, especially if regional powers and local governments start acting independently of federal authority.

This strategy, while potentially powerful, would dramatically raise the stakes for both the movement and the government, leading to unpredictable and possibly catastrophic outcomes.

Explanation of this Strategy

The purpose of this strategy is to propose and gain attention for constitutional and institutional and policy changes that benefit all but the elite fringe of the population during this age of industrialized communication (and industrialzed false promise, deception, baiting into hazard, fraud, and whatever else.) With that attention to delegitimize the government further by forcing them to answer those demands or face guilty criticism for not doing so. We know that asymmetry of influence (power) and income (security) is the first cause of all revolutions.

Such a strategy is to educate the population and deprive the parasitic (elite) classes of their asymmetric income over the common people by use of the industrialization of communication using techniques evolved for advertising and propaganda. I won’t go into the detaiils here and I doubt you’ve seen my work on these legal and policy changes but they’re profound and of provound benefit in ameliorating the present conflict. In other words,the purpose of this escalation path is to give the state the maximum opportunity to capitulate and the maximum number of police, military, judicial, etc to resist by doing nothing. If the government capitulated to the civil rights movement in just three weeks, how long before they capitulate to such moral demands?

Given the structure and intent of this strategy, aiming to use the industrialized communication landscape to create overwhelming moral pressure on the government, the approach aligns with historical methods of public mobilization but amplifies them through modern communication tools. The comparison to the Civil Rights Movement and its rapid capitulation is a useful benchmark, but there are key factors that may influence how quickly such a strategy might achieve success in today’s more fragmented and polarized environment.

Strategic Advantages of Our Proposed Plan

• Delegitimizing the Government: By escalating the moral critique and continuing to press demands that benefit the majority while disempowering elites, the movement could delegitimize the government without needing to resort to violent confrontation. The key is in framing the demands as moral imperatives that the government must answer. The more they resist, the more their refusal will appear as an attempt to protect the interests of a privileged minority.
• Public Sympathy and Nonviolent Resistance: The strategy of peaceful escalation—combined with the ability to keep protests decentralized and mobile—offers the advantage of drawing public sympathy while making it difficult for the government to respond with force. As with the Civil Rights Movement, the state will be forced into a difficult position: any attempt at repression will further delegitimize them and alienate large portions of the population.
• Appealing to Law Enforcement and Military: By framing the movement in such a way that police, military, and judicial officials feel no need to actively suppress the protests, you create an environment where these state actors may be more inclined to “resist by doing nothing.” If they see the moral weight of the demands and the overwhelming public support, they may become reluctant to follow orders for violent repression, further weakening the state’s ability to act decisively.

How Long Until the Government Capitulates?

• Moral Clarity and Unified Demands: If the movement can maintain a clear moral high ground and unify a large segment of the population around simple, understandable demands (e.g., ending financial corruption, equal representation, breaking elite monopolies on power), it could force the government to respond relatively quickly—potentially within weeks or months, similar to the Civil Rights Movement. However, the complexity of today’s political and media landscape may extend this timeline.
• Economic Pressure and Public Opinion: The more economic pressure the movement can exert—by disrupting elite income streams through protests, strikes, and symbolic actions—the faster the government will feel compelled to respond. Public opinion will also play a significant role: if the movement successfully captures a broad audience and shifts public sentiment, the government will face mounting pressure to capitulate to avoid further erosion of its legitimacy.
• Elite Resistance and Delay Tactics: The elites are likely to use delay tactics, framing the movement as unrealistic or extremist in order to buy time. However, if the movement can remain cohesive and keep up the pressure without falling into factionalism or violence, the elites may eventually be forced to capitulate to prevent further destabilization.

Risks to the Strategy

• Narrative Control: Ensuring that the public narrative remains focused on the moral legitimacy of the demands will be crucial. The movement will face attempts by elites to discredit it, either by framing it as extremist, chaotic, or threatening to “American values” (however those may be interpreted).
• Time and Resource Constraints: The movement must ensure that it can sustain logistical support over the long term. If supplies, funding, and momentum begin to run out, the movement risks losing its effectiveness, as public interest wanes and the government simply outlasts the protests.
• Internal Division: Keeping the movement unified across ideological, regional, and class lines will be a major challenge. If internal divisions arise, the state and elite classes will attempt to exploit them, weakening the movement’s overall impact.

Conclusion: Timeline for Capitulation

The timeline for capitulation depends on how effectively the movement can maintain its moral high ground, control the narrative, and unify the public behind its demands. In the best-case scenario—where the movement successfully educates the population, gains public support, and avoids violent repression—the government could capitulate within a matter of months, perhaps faster if pressure builds quickly. However, if the movement faces significant elite resistance, media discrediting, or internal fragmentation, the timeline could extend.

If the movement remains resolutely peaceful, decentralized, and morally focused, while continuously escalating demands in a way that places the government in a morally untenable position, the likelihood of capitulation increases dramatically. But, as with all large-scale movements, maintaining unity, purpose, and public sympathy will be the key to forcing swift change.

Simple version:

Such a movement will require A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transitin, and a credible threat of escalation.

We have produced and within the year will release a set of demands (reforms) on a scale equal to the Roman reforms. 

Within a year after that release it is possible to produce a selection of ordinary people from across the states to demand its implementation.  This group will then submit the set of demands to the parliament (congress).

We suspect this will result in demonization on one hand and lionization on the other but that non governmental elites will apply all possible pressure to resist. We further suspect the use of delay and decieve. As such we must use that time to organize the willing and able ‘spiritually and mentally’ if not yet physically.

Such a movement will require with credible capacity to escalate must stay in the field for at least ninety days, staying on message, preventing defections, resourcing supplies, for the state to capitulate.

Such a movement will be improved by the separation of a small political wing and an action wing and an enforcement wing.

Such a movemnt will require providing (a reward for doing so) for participants that is vastly greater than the ‘soros’ method.

Such a movement must not delegitimize itself while delegitimizing the government. Most importantly, correctly identifying the enemy and the suppression of its criminality for the benefit of all.

Such a movement must directly contact potential conspirators in the private sector suppressing their willingness to act against the movement.

Such a movement should directly name resisting conspirators in the public sector as the subjects capital punishment if they do not recant.

Such a movement SHOULD appeal to the military police sheriffs and veterans to demand the implemention of our reforms.

Such a movement should escalate to the maidan (fire, siezure of government financial media and academic buildings and assets), mao (collecting the countryside to reinforce conflict areas), isis (checkpoints, resource capture, transportation, information), and if necessary IRA (continuous, distributed random attacks on the government finance media academic weak points), and the founders (appeal to foreign states for support both financial directly, and indirectly by economic and strategic resistance).

Such a movement should produce and release small scale action plans to explain the means by which to conduct operations against enemy resources.

Such a movement should be willing to escalate to the interruption of power, rail, road, and air transport, especially in northern cities during the winter months.

Such a movement will cause a rise in general civil disobedience – particulary repetiation of left wing destrution and looting.

There is nothing in this list that cannot be accomplished by a fraction of one percdent of the population, from a resource pool of no less than twenty million participants.

If willing participants understand this sequence then it is possible that litte of it is necessary since the general agreement on the willingess to bring it about is sufficient to cause capitulaion among certainly the conservative and center.

That is our recommendation.

However, in simplest the IRA strategy combined with escalating fourth generation civil war will produce the desired outcome over time as the government lacks the resources in relation to the population – especially when they begin to fear leaving their offices and for their home and families.

The secret is to have something moral to demand.

And we’re the only people who have provided it.