Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For AmericaBy Brandon Smith My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they wont have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible. As I write this, Chinas stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting. Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans wont care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They dont realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollars petro-status more likely in the near term. With the U.S. in the middle, taking a side will be a demand. I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg). The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order. These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears. Their vagueness is clearly deliberate. Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, expanding background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything. We will probably know more in the coming weeks. And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the tip of the spear in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the plan is immediately labeled a coward and keyboard warrior by their supporters. Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented. As I wrote in my article Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with, some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they dont care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off. I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy Ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters are being perceived as the invaders, not the defenders and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them NOT to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon will end in a very different fashion. I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to come and get them. Again, there are right ways and wrong ways to fight tyranny. Simply being willing to fight is not enough. Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war they should do it over draconian gun control measures such as the use of classified government watch lists as grounds for denial of 2nd Amendment rights, rather than using a family who did not want armed support to begin with as a means to an end. Keep in mind that watch lists are entirely arbitrary. There is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesnt like and belong on a naughty list. The changing of gun dealer laws could be used to erase gun shows and private sales of firearms as well. A standoff scenario based on these issues would be a much more practical concept than what is taking place in Oregon. As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I and other analysts have been warning people about this for years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed the first working thermal evasion suit available to civilians to give people half a chance against advanced weaponry. I have no illusions that a peaceful solution exists. I know that there is no such solution at this point in the game. But when the fighting starts, I also know that those who navigate the storm intelligently rather than allowing their emotions to get the best of them are more likely to survive and succeed. I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But, I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as this storm rises. You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real tip of the spear. First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but dont jump blindly into any situation. If his plan seems poorly thought out, dont follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, dont follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, dont follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, dont follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and questions your patriotism when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him. Remember, it is the job of this leadership to CONVINCE YOU of the legitimacy of their plan if they are seeking your support. The burden of evidence is on them. It is not your job to support them blindly just because you want to avoid being called a sunshine patriot. To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first, and make sure his planning is solid. Ive found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense, and the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some events requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action. The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warriors mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them and they will destroy allies in the process of their pursuits. I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with a long term strategy in mind, then you have missed the entire point. Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a tribe or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead. The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they dont have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people. Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, you will be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur. I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the governments tyranny. Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, if we fight we must fight TO WIN. This means not deliberately searching for an Alamo. Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed profits will only lead people to disaster. Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, when the fight begins, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely. You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. 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 John 10: plan stock up (on the essentials), rehearse (ensure viability of the plan) and repeat. Brandon: The point/counterpoint throughout your piece hints at it but you never directly address it. There are concerns for sound strategies and for insuring, if possible, a victory that are part and parcel of any hot conflict and those are fine and necessary in their place. After all revolution is not about suicidethough it is entirely within a mans own conscience whether or not, and when, he in fact commit such an final act, the thing being, as we say, between him and his god, eh? But people fight revolutions not because they are guaranteed or even fairly certain of victory. People fight revolutions because they are fed up. Their motive is thus internal and spiritual and not hooked to material certainties, or uncertainties. In other words, there is an element that is internal and essentially unhooked from any of these material concerns and is represented fairly well in the 20th Century maxim, better dead than Red. This is an essential element in any revolution and yet I hear almost no mention of itor any concern for its health! Nor do I hear it from you. Nor did I hear any mention of this from James Corbet who, by the way, sent me to this site. I wonder why. Has the internal life become a dead and meaningless thing to modern Americans? You write above, Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. This sounds fair and balanced and clearly inches up on the to be or not to be question that I want to bring forward, but there remains a question: does your position as stated strengthen or weaken the aforementioned spirit that is necessarily at the heart of any revolution? Does your comment make strong or does it weaken that internal thing that is the root of any genuine revolutionfor it certainly WAS the root of our own Revolution and that ought not to be forgotten by any of us involved in the work of awakening our neighbors! Furthermore, since it is on the lips of every naysayer that if we resist the federal government we will be immediately crushed, it is necessary to point out that the material situation of the Colonists was not any different from our own. For one thing, they were obviously outnumbered and outgunned. For another, they still prevailedjust as the Vietnamese prevailed against us, and the Afghans prevailed against the Russians, etc. Now, these historic facts may go to support your concern for strategies, fine, but the question remains whether not bothering to mention the small numbers that win revolutions helps or harms the spirit and thus the cause of freedom itself. Am I making myself clear here sir? Now, I dont know with any certainty what exactly are the forces at work up in Oregon right now, nor do I feel that in your article you have adequately informed me and/or supported your suggestion that these interlopers from elsewhere are guilty as charged, i.e., hotheads and imbeciles. Yes, it seems that they have an agenda, but some would simply call that a strategy and careful planningthe very thing you are calling forand that would have to be judged on actual knowledge of that planwhich, incidentally, I dont have from your article or that of anyone else! But I do know that one of those groups up there have patches that read the 3 percent, which is a clear reference to the small numbers that actually won the Revolutionary War and a clear indication that these folks know something about our history and about tactics. I didnt see any reference to that in your coverage of this story. Why not? And I have at least one more question: Is it a moral failure, a failure to retain the moral high ground at all times, to imagine that the time to act is different than your particular sense of timing? Put differently, men (and women) give up their physical lives for revolutions; is it a moral failure because a man decides to give his life up on a time line that is different than yours or that of some self proclaimed leader/generalespecially when you havent (that I know of) bothered to publish one at all! Think about this; who out there has stood up and galvanized those who are angry? Who out there has brought forward any plan at all!? No one. Bundy needs to be looked at in this vacuum. Are you sure with an absolute certainty that what the Bundy group is doing up in Oregon might not be the perfect thing to galvanize those who are angry and get them off their butts and out of their comfortable apartments and houses and into the streets? I myself do not know, but it seems pretty clear to me that neither do youthough you may have an mere opinion on the subject. For it seems clear to me that while many revolutions enslaved to a plan have been delayed until it was too late to act, and while, as the ancient Chinese say, the talk of revolution must go the rounds three times if it is to succeed, I know of no revolution where the exact moment of inception was anything but organic and totally unforeseen. Do you know of any such? I am not so old that I am not able to learn and I would be glad to hear of it if you do. And one last question, with all the patently false and inflammatory coverage of this so-called standoff in Oregon, wouldnt it be better to make it very very clear just what they have done that is in principle wrong, off the moral high ground, or in lieu of that give them the support that the corporate for-profit media obviously will not? Now, I dont know if you will even bother to read this sir, much less bother to respond (though, since this is not a comment but a series of questions I do expect a response). And while these questions may seem overly abstract and even obscure to some nuts and bolts journalists who are not also philosophers, these are real questions and I think, since every child is born a philosopher, accessible to any citizen who is sufficiently concerned at our situation, as I know you are*, to look at my words with care. Thanks for your thought provoking article. Jay Warren Clark, SDSU retired, and Sacred Meadows Ranch, Concho, Arizona * It is clear from the content of your essay that you are aware that the nation is in a constitutional crisis that is not going to go away without some concerted action, anymore than King George was going to go away just because a number of his more articulate subjects sent him impassioned request for reliefit being the case that power understands only power. JWC 