On National Unity

loyalistsOne of the major problems I have with talk of a “revolution” is that of national unity.

Gangland.

The nation as a whole is lost, folks.  There are large swaths of this country where, in a time of revolution, the rule of law would cease to exist; areas which would likely remain beyond the grasp of control, law, and order.  I recently read that 90% of Oakland, California’s violence is gang-related, not to mention all the additional crime associated with it.  Those people don’t want to be in a country where the rule of law reigns.

Revolution would bring additional chaos to inner cities already rife with crime.  Cities are hustling and bustling centers of commerce and finance, and, without a plan to clear at least the financial sectors, you’ll have to relocate them.  How do you account for the existing infrastructure?  Can you retrofit the new locations?  Are you prepared to have gangland in your new country?  I know many of us say, That’s not our problem, but it will be ours and our new nation’s problem.  Revolution isn’t as simple as deposing the throne.

Political Unity.

But let’s say that we could clear the cities of most gang-related crime, or at least reduce rampant crime so that life goes on.  I think a large problem we’d run into is that of opposing political parties.  Are you going to allow the same politics that you just fought against remain in your new nation?  Could the new government give them an ultimatum, say – Hey, we own this land and we’re going to govern it by this set of rules; if you don’t agree then go somewhere else.

We know that around the time of the American Revolution, between 15 and 20 percent of colonials were pro-British Loyalists.  What ensued after the Revolution is that many Loyalists moved to present-day Canada.  Many still were expelled from New York and presumably also fled to Canada.

What would have our new nation turned into had Loyalists be allowed to remain?

Butler’s Rangers.

The last thing I’d like to say builds on Monday’s post (On the Viability of a Leftist Revolution).  In 1777, Colonel John Butler founded a regiment of Loyalists to aid British General John Burgoyne’s campaign to take the Hudson River.  After a skirmish in which Col. Butler was commanding, the Patriot militias began a retreat, initiating a hunt for the retreating survivors.  Col. Butler reported that 227 Patriot scalps were collected in what followed, along with the razing of 1,000 Patriot houses.

Only four months later came the worst massacre of the Revolution, led by Col. John Butler’s son, Walter Butler, in retaliation for Patriot attacks on forward bases of the pro-British Mohawk and Seneca Indians.  Thirty colonial civilians were murdered, along with 70 women and children taken into captivity.

Through 1779-1780, Butler’s Rangers continued raids on villages killing an unnumbered amount of men, women, and children.

Conclusion.

As covered on Monday, there remain elements in this country – Loyalists – who would likely be of great aid in countering local militias in any revolution, perceived or real.  Whether or not a movement is able to, violently or politically, secede to create a new nation or restore the Republic, there’s an entirely undiscovered third dynamic in this picture: the willingness of opposing Loyalist militias, of which there would likely be many.  Fighting a federal regime in a revolution might only be half the battle.

14 Comments

  1. Partisan – I agree that we have probably passed the point where anything – even continued “unity” in our current incarnation as a state – is long gone. That said, I’m not quite sure what the outcome would be. Most “City Dwellers” are unlikely to pick up and leave (and even if they did, where would they go?), and I’m not even sure how any transfer of population would occur. I’m thinking here of the partition of India and Pakistan, which I recall did not go very smoothly.

    As to the question of Loyalist militias, perhaps I’m wrong but I’ve no sense that such a thing would exist other than in the “pack” mentality of gangs (who have a enlightened self interest in keeping the gravy train of benefits going)? More and more, it seems that that sort of mentality deals in candlelight vigils and marches, not force.

    As always, thank you for the thought provoking article.

    • Partisan says:

      TB, “city dwellers” will pack up and leave when one of two things happen: they run out of food or they run out of security. In the event of civil unrest, systems disruption is likely to occur. That affects food transportation into the city as it becomes unsafe. Additionally, those who have the means to get out likely will if the environment becomes volatile or unsafe. Transfer of population will be on foot, by vehicle – any way possible. How do people get out when a hurricane comes? Many don’t but a lot do.

      I say Loyalist militias, but they could just as easily be gangs. Think of all those mobs at Obama rallies in 2008 and arm them, for instance. Matt Bracken’s CW2 cube shows the breakdown along socioeconomic and ethnic lines – the same breakdown we’ve seen in other countries with civil violence. As for candlelight vigils, all that type of mentality needs is a spark. Mao said, “A potential revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens. If there also exists even the nucleus of a revolutionary party able to supply doctrine and organization, only one ingredient is needed: the instrument for violent revolutionary action.” I believe him to be correct.

      Thank you for reading and, as always, your thoughts are always appreciated and welcome.

      • True enough – I guess I was thinking more of whole scale movements caused by civil unrest, especially the dissolution of a society.

        It makes sense that gangs would be a form of militia, although maybe the terminology might be a bit different (what constitutes a true militia versus a gang? Is a gang a form of militia)? True as well that a spark is what’s needed – perhaps I’ve just become soft (or jaded) with the bulk of citizens that I see and their ability to act.

        • Partisan says:

          TB, in our context, the militia is the body of the American people. We know that was the Founders’ definition. You are the militia, I am the militia, and all other fighting aged American men are the militia.

          But I would equate gangs, thugs, and other organized violent criminals to be militias in the sense of African / Southwest Asian warlord gangs (or insurgents) who have a control of a small region. Gangs control turf and city blocks; armies control sectors, districts, provinces, or nations; and militias control communities and counties.

          I really like what Gerald Celente (http://www.trendsresearch.com/gerald.php) says: When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. And when 18-wheelers no longer deliver food into cities, or food is simply outpriced for the average MUY (minority urban youth), they will lose it; as will poor white trash in rural America who depend on their EBT cards.

  2. jwoop66 says:

    Hell, not only that, but the media would go full bore to recruit loyalist traitors. No shit. They will have to be taken out piecemeal, just like the media.

    The left will Not be weak and defenseless. They will need to be defeated. It will not be easy.

    So what? I needs to be done. They will not stop. We need to goad them into acting first.

    • Partisan says:

      Jwoop – Kilcullen and Petraeus were the ones who said that the media was an asset of the enemy and a liability to Bluefor. Short of denial of blue terrain and confinement (and probably deterrence), I see little that we can do short of violence, if this situation deteriorates to that level. I’m not sure that it will and I hope that it doesn’t, but recent history suggests that society will break down along socioeconomic or ethnic lines.

      As far as goading them into acting first, I don’t think we’ll need to goad them. We’ll just have to resist unconstitutional laws until the conflict naturally spirals out of control. If that happens, it’s all bets off. I just hope people are smart enough to leave population centers and move into safer, more homogenous areas.

      • jwoop66 says:

        I believe their whole goal right now is to make us act first. Violently. We have to resist to make them take that step first.

        Do I want that? NO. Emphatically no! I don’t see another way, though. They (Dems/left, weak Repubs) will not stop trying to eradicate the constitution and subjugate us all; for our own good, of course. They wont. Two opposing philosophies-no common ground for compromise. You can’t compromise with slavery( I know- the repubs try at every opportunity).

        Sucks…

        • Partisan says:

          J-Dub, it does suck. I think our mantra at this point is: Don’t do anything until there’s something to do. Resistance movements turn into revolutions, not the other way around. The American Empire is collapsing all around us so we just wait it out. Help others get in shape; teach them how to shoot; establish or selectively expand your tribe with face-to-face meetings and not over the interwebs; gather community members who are either sympathetic or who support the idea of a Community Defense Platform and simply be ready to repel enforcement of unconstitutional laws; and finally – the most important part – enable your state and county political and LE leaders to do the right thing.

          • Sid Ishen says:

            At my age I’m no longer capable of being an “operator” but I’ve got a couple of Purple Hearts that show that at one time, many years ago, I was. So I wait – and I collect intel, something that is not often talked about on the blogs. I’m talking about specific, local intel that is not hard to gather. Nearby police departments or substations, state police barracks, National Guard armories. How many cops/troops/vehicles. All police patrol vehicles are marked. Get the unit numbers. Does your local PD have a SWAT team? Probably – how many members, armored cars, mobile command posts, etc. Where’s the local city/county maintenance yard? What frequencies do they operate on, where is the comm center, where are the repeaters, what’s the security like? Many repeaters are in remote areas with little or no security. What type of unit uses your local NG armory, what kind of vehicles do they have, are they there or perhaps deployed?

            Where are there bridges, especially small ones that would be easier to damage or destroy; freeway overpasses, railroad bridges, local airports, military bases and reserve bases.

            There are literally hundreds of things to learn about your AO that are readily available to you. Learn to use Google Earth to its fullest extent – it’s a gold mine of intel. Get a full set of maps for your AO especially topo maps in a rural area. Go to the next open house at your local PD/NG armory, etc. Go on a ride along at the local cop shop. Find the local cop bar (there’s always at least one) and hang around on occasion. Talk to a few cops and try to get a feel about what they think about the future.
            Collect names and addresses of important folks who live near you such as judges (especially federal), senior police/federal agents, politicians, etc.

            All this info will be useful even if the local LEO comes back from the dark side. There are hundreds of other bits of info you can collect with little effort or cost. I’ve never heard of anyone complaining of having too much intel.

            That’s what I’m doing while waiting for the balloon to go up and it’s all on a TrueCrypt thumbdrive with backups.

          • Partisan says:

            Hey Sid – Thank you for reading and a great comment! Something we haven’t talked much about is the role of the civilian auxiliary. I have gone back and forth about wanting to write an article on conducting Order of Battle intelligence on local law enforcement, federal agencies, and the military. In a WROL or EROL scenario, that information is going to come in mighty handy. I’ll have to get with my attorney and have a chat about ‘conspiracy’ and whether or not collecting information on the police and federal agents is criminal or not.

            As for terrain, have you read my six part series on Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield? I go into detail about some of what you write.

            You bring up a really great point, though: there’s still tons of domestic information out there available with little effort. Thank you for keeping the faith and holding the line in your AO. Lastly, do you use a VPN? I don’t get many comments from the UK. :)

  3. Sheepdog says:

    One interesting element to consider is SPECIALIZATION. Our Industrial Revolution brought about a negative result in loss of general skill and self-reliance. However, in this coming struggle, specializing will help the individual and his community to focus.
    Firstly, we all have a general idea of what is coming. And generally, it is the same for us all. We will have an overbearing or absent govt presence, lack of electricity-services, upset and hungry masses, basic havoc.
    However, secondly, I am highly unlikely to encounter inner city black gangs due to my locale. And some are not likely to deal with MS13 (demographics). So, as we assess our own personal assets and liabilities, we can eliminate some of the confusion-chatter.
    I can specialize my plans and infrastructure for local meth makers as the most likely threat.
    On a broader scale, we can prep as needed for a wide range of national rebuilding possibilities. But our most effective energies will be spent on STRONG local communities. I work on mine, you on yours. Then we have MAGs all over our land, ready to unite (mutual aid group).
    Our time is best focused on known effect, lets go local boys.

    • Partisan says:

      I need a ranking system for these comments, Sheepdog. I’d Like, +1, or whatever this one. (But maybe the current commenting system is the true guerrilla way – the best comments just blend in with the others.)

      Regarding “general ideas” of what’s coming; I really wish we could peg something more concrete! Perhaps we should start a working group and wargame different scenarios. Like you, I’m also unlikely to see the spread of inner city gang violence because of the distant proximity to the inner city, but the inner city gang mentality is, I believe, of necessity: the inner city is a tough place to be. We can’t discount that same mentality becoming pervasive in our own communities, no matter the ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic populations. The meth labs and the folks who run them are great examples of more rural gang warfare.

      I like your idea of mutual aid groups, especially because some communities aren’t likely to be affected due to distance, geography, or the human terrain. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m serious about wargaming some possible scenarios, especially on the community / tactical level. I would love to publish the results.

  4. 2heavyb says:

    I agree that its likely to break down along ethnic/socio-economic lines in the largest cities. The Sad prospect of several Beirut style melt downs across the country is not a joyous prospect. However with the lack of connection and impersonal interaction common in our largest cities it seems inevitable. I do feel that small towns or well integrated rural communities will be fine for mixed ethnic relationships. I mean if Sam is a different skin color than me but we have lived in the same town for years and everybody else knows Sam is a good man then he can be secure in our community. Of course this probably won’t hold true on any trips to nearby communities though. I think staying in place in a small town will be easier than trying to stay within the confines of a typical big city neighborhood. Especially with the mentioned roving gangs looking for resources.

    • Partisan says:

      2HB, thank you for reading; you raise some great points. I agree that smaller communities’ lack of homogeneity wouldn’t be an issue. In the Deep South where I grew up, that could still hold true in some communities but just remember that relatively few (if any) Jews were safe in Nazi Germany. I don’t think we have any racial cleansing the future (I certainly hope not) but with a few more terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims, combined with more troubling economic times (not to mention any societal disorder), and we could see certain groups targeting Muslims for reprisal. The Japanese, after all, were sent to internment camps.

      What would be your advice to minorities in safer white neighborhoods?

%d bloggers like this: