August 22, 2014 at 12:31 am #22923
MountainBiker, I think that the gradual implementation has been tried and has had some problems. Not to say they will not try again and on many fronts. There problem is the internet, the cellphone that the two send information and videos to fast and the word gets out to everyone. They have tried gun control little by little to control which guns they can outlaw but they have had problems with that too. Even the Executive Orders are having problems now and may not work the way O thought.
That is why I see a grid down and they blame ISIS or someone else and try to take control by saying we need marshal law to protect everyone. This would make it a little easier but there will be many that will know better.August 22, 2014 at 12:48 am #22925
Yeah freedom, sometimes it feels like we’re living in a Matt Bracken novel.August 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm #22987
I appreciate the welcome comments and the feedback. Thanks!
freedom: I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. The plan isn’t to secure 320M people. It’s to secure strategic locations, and the rest can fend for themselves. This is conjecture, based on my knowledge and experience, but I would expect the first locations to be secured would be Atlanta, San Diego, Seattle, probably Baltimore (maybe Boston), and Chicago. Other high priority cities would be Denver, maybe Omaha, and San Antonio (maybe Dallas or Houston instead). I didn’t just pull these cities out of thin air. These are strategic locations with a dense standing military population. They also happen to closely correspond with the headquarters of FEMA’s regional offices.(http://www.fema.gov/regional-operations) So the nation has already been sectorized, and any occupied city would be as well. It wouldn’t be a matter of guarding or overwatching every citizen; it would be corraling the compliant and confining the noncompliant.
Once those centers are secured, then the government forces could push outwards and start to reestablish control of the “outlands”. Yes, it could take years, depending on the nature of the disaster and populace reaction to it, but this wouldn’t take anywhere near 10M troops, and I assume your estimate of a 1M troop attrition rate in the first year is hyperbole. Our current active duty military strength is only ~1.4M troops, and many of those are in support roles, not combat roles. During the Revolutionary War, only ~3% of the colonists actively fought in the war. Even in the Civil War, only ~10% fought (counting both the Union and Confeferate Forces and excluding slaves from the total population). Even taking into account our relatively low percentage of active military members (not counting Reserve components or National Guard), we managed to fight two major land wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and still send troops to Katrina in “support”.
Also keep in mind I’m talking about a legitimate disaster response, not a coup. The military members’ response would be completely different in those two situations. a Naval officer conducted a survey at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, CA. Some of the questions were, in effect, “Would you be willing to obey the orders of UN officials if you were assigned to their unit” and “Would you be willing to use lethal force against US citizens who refused to comply with a weapon confiscation plan enacted by the the US Government.” Different people react differently to the numbers (personally, I was disheartened by the responses), but a deeper analysis basically showed that an overwhelming majority of the senior enlisted personnel answered in a manner supporting the Constitution, and it was the junior enlisted who skewed the overall statistics away from Constitutional thinking. That tells me you’re right, during a coup, many military units would crumble due to refusal to obey unlawful orders, or even open insurrection. However, looking at the Katrina response, if the troops believe they are responding to a legitimate disaster, few would hesitate to take drastic and extreme measures to ensure their own safety and the accomplishment of their mission. Martial law was never officially declared in that response (the Governer of LA did declare a “police state”, which could be interpreted as being synonymous), but due to subversive and criminal elements in the area, the troops followed orders to disarm all citizens, including lawful ones, to ensure a safe environment. Very few questioned this order. I heard a rumor that one National Guard unit was dissolved because the soldiers refused to participate in weapons confiscation, but I haven’t been able to verify any reliable information.
Another factoid to keep in mind is a government response on US soil would not be restricted to military troops. Don’t forget Obama saying, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” DHS would be heavily involved and ultimately in charge of any response in the states. I’m not one to think the powers that be wake up in the morning and plot our subjugation, but even I have to scratch my head at the ammo orders made by DHS in the last couple of years. You don’t use hollow point ammunition for training, and the Geneva Convention prohibits their use in wartime, so…..?
As far as gradual versus sudden, again, I’m not convinced our government is scheming to undermine our freedom (though I’m not unconvinced, either), but a combination of the two approaches would be the most effective. Gradually and slowly erode the very concept of liberty versus security, and once the population has reached a tipping point, hit with a sudden and shocking event to coalesce them into a common cause and demonstrate the need for change. You don’t want it to be too gradual, or people will begin to see through it. If you make it too sudden, you face culture shock and resistance. You have to make the people think it was their idea.August 22, 2014 at 7:18 pm #22991
warpedrazorback, I also have studied the FEMA regional maps. I do think they have plans but I do not think they will work even with the DHS. I know someone in the DHS and they have told me if that were to happen that there would be many turn goats also in the DHS. In a limited area they may go along( hurracane or bombing in a city) but not in many cities all at the same time.
The military, some in DSH and even some in FEMA will turn and join in an insurrection with the armed people and retired military, retired police. This is were I get the numbers from. There are 100 million armed Americans. There is a 1.4 million in all the military and all are not at home all the time. So maybe 400 thousand of the 1.4 million will be turn goats and fight with the people. Now out of the 100 million armed there will be a 5 to 10% hardcore men and women that will fight for there freedoms. That is 5 to 10 million + the 400 thousand military that will help them.
This is why I think they know the numbers do not add up for them so the only way is gun control or grid down to stop us from communicating with each other.
I think that what I have posted many times here is one of the only ways is a grid down to make it easier to control but if that happens we are back to the 320 million people, how do they feed all of them. FEMA camps can’t even handle 10 million. The 320 million will go nuts without food and water. It will not be a right fighting the left thing. Everyone will be fighting. They just can’t deal with that many people. Maybe there plan will be to step back and let many die. Then go into the cities.
One thing is for sure is they are planning something.August 22, 2014 at 8:02 pm #22995
freedom: I’d love to continue this discussion, but I think we’re starting to stray off-topic. Is there an existing thread about this, or should we create one?August 22, 2014 at 8:11 pm #22996
Quick update on my situation. I have my State Senator, whom is also a friend and lawyer, kindly helping me. He gave me a letter that tells my county rep’s to cease harassment and contact his office in reference to my water catchment, gardens and livestock. The Georgia State Law does not state it is NOT unlawful for you to collect rainwater but helpful, but each county does have it’s own laws about catchment where there is my problem. So, my property backs up to 100 acres of state property, so I just will roll my rain barrels for now onto that property and say, well it belongs to the state and smile pretty as for the animals, he has that covered. He assures me, they will back down. If not, we will make this an outcry to the public. My rights are being denied as a homeowner and an American citizen. I will keep you posted.August 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm #22997
dreamerhps: Glad you have someone to advocate for you. These Agenda 21-esque laws are starting to get under my skin. I’ve heard one of the biggest problems is that the terms “water catchment system” and “water recycle system” are ambiguously defined at the federal and state levels, leaving it up to city and county authorities to interpret. The two different types of systems have different governing laws, and some overzelaous people in positions of authority like to swing their proverbial…um….pens.
Good luck! Hope to hear more positive news!August 22, 2014 at 8:33 pm #22999
warpedrazorback, There probable is but it is OK to go off topic as long as we get back to topic. Some of the best post on the forum have come from some off topic examples.
So do you live in the city or rural areas?August 22, 2014 at 8:47 pm #23001
Great Dreamer!!!! Glad to hear you have things going your way. Let us know how it turns out.August 22, 2014 at 8:53 pm #23004
dreamer, great news, I am happy you got some help on the legal side. Please keep us posted on you updates.August 22, 2014 at 9:37 pm #23006
freedom: Ok, works for me.
I understand now where you’re getting your theoretical numbers, but I want to again stress that the scenario I was discussing was not an outright coup, with the government simply coming out and trying to take over. If they were going to try implementing a government take over, the best way for them to do so, at least in the short term, would be a false flag event, like taking down the grid and blaming it on foreign elements as you suggest.
However, I can assure you that taking the grid down would not be necessary to prevent mass communications. The internet can be taken down relatively quickly and easily, at least for the common citizen. Hackers and techs would still be able to use the network backbone and access TOR, maybe even some commerical and institutional sites, but the average Joe would be out of luck. Cell phones would be very easy to take out; they are essentially short-range radios, so killing the towers and/or routing switches would kill the network. Landline phones would be even easier. The hardest thing for them to kill would be shortwave radios, but honestly, how many people know how to use those anymore (note to self: I REALLY need to get on top of getting smart on shortwave operation).
Killing the grid would cause so much ancillary damage that it would render the return on investment too small, maybe even a negative return. Plus we (the US) have demonstrated that we’re pretty terrible at false flag operations in the long run. We always end up being called out on it.
So why run a false flag at all? We have certainly made enough of a mess of foreign relations that we have a whole slew of actual adversaries that we could just let slip in the back door (southern border, anyone?) and coax into doing the dirty work for us. Look at all the FBI stings where we actually give the would-be terrorist the “equipment” and “training” to carry out a mission, then point and laugh when we arrest them with a dummy bomb and prosecute the crap out of them. So we’re pretty good at doing that. But again, allowing the destruction of the grid would give them power over…what? An almost pre-industrial nation? To what gain?
Now that being said, you mentioned that they might be willing to let the masses die. It’s very interesting you say that, especially right on the heels of dreamer’s post. I mentioned Agenda 21 in my response to her. Of all things nefarious, that one concerns me the most. I don’t want to go into all the nuts and bolts of it, but one of the goals of Agenda 21 is to curb global population to “sustainable levels”, whatever that means. There are a bunch of numbers in the document from which I’m sure someone with time and motivation could use to derive what the UN’s idea of a “sustainable” global population would be, but that isn’t me, at least not at the moment. They talk about how much water there is, how much arable land there is, so from that an equation could be derived for their target population, but my point is they believe the current global population is too high. The US has signed on as a supporting member, but it isn’t binding as a treaty, and therefore Congress never signed off on it. However, half of the cities and towns signed up in support of Agenda 21’s offspring, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), are in the US. That means all these local ordinances restricting things like rainwater catchment systems and what plants you can grow and how many animals you can husband, these are often based on Agenda 21 ideals, even when the local authorities have no idea what Agenda 21 is. So yes, I think it is certainly in the realm of possibility that there is a concept out there to promote population reduction through warfare and the resulting attrition (starvation, lack of healthcare, all the things that you see happening in places like Iraq and Syria). Note I said “in the realm of possibility”, not “likely” or “probable”.
Back to your question, I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ. I just moved here some months ago. It is absolutely the last place I want to be if an all out SHTF scenario goes down, for a variety of reasons. For me, bugging out is an absolute last case option. If I’m bugging out, things are really, really bad, and it would essentially mean I have reason to believe there will be a total or near total collapse of the federal government. So I’ll just reorganize my prepping priorities and see where I can get before SHTF.August 22, 2014 at 10:02 pm #23008
warpedrazorback, All great points. I think we are in agreement on a lot of the subject. I want to point out that the ham radio may work with a grid down if you protect it from an EMP if not you will have a fried ham radio.
So you live in a city like my self, Miami, Florida. It would be a war zone here. I do not know many people that do not own a gun here.
Agenda 21 I have read a lot on it and believe that it is true since there are so many city laws that are part of Agenda 21. UN would help. I believe they would take down the grid with adversary that will get our help so they would do it right. The can blame them later but we will not know about it for years and many will die and never know what or who did it. The gun control will never work so this is the best way. They do not even have to send the military in. We will kill each other for food and water, After 12 to 24 months the UN comes in and helps the ones that are still alive be offering food and water but to get the food and water you must give up your weapons.
Now they have total control of the people and lost a small amount of the army because they didn’t need to fight a civil war. Now the problem will be the rural areas which the government has other plans for them. They know rural areas have food and water so there is were the war will be.
Now that is only what I think. You have many great points that may come true and I maybe wrong on some of my points. But one way or another it is all about which way they can take us down the easiest.August 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm #23144
dreamer, you live in GA? I assumed you were in the arid west somewhere. I never heard of water controls of that nature on the east coast. Makes no sense why they would care.August 26, 2014 at 2:13 am #23304
I have a question regarding fresh water. I live in the suburbs in Gulf Coast Texas. I’ve been told there is a city ordinance against drilling your own water well yet none of the city officials can tell me why … (???) I also have some rural land (2.6 acres) that is undeveloped (no water well, septic tank, etc.,) and is 6 hours (north) away from us here.
I’m wondering how hard it would be to tap a well here in the suburb if the SHTF here because of a hurricane?
When Hurricane Ike hit the Gulf Coast, our city had a water boil advisory for about 3 hours only after the storm had passed. We got by with no problem. Used the generator to keep the appliances running for about 12 days. I had gas for about 2 days and on the second day the stations opened back up. Stores had about 72 hours down and then they reopened with fresh food, as did pharmacies.
Water was, and still is, what I am concerned with. My wife is diabetic now and must have drinking water as well as some sort of food. In a SHTF situation I would not worry about the legalities of drilling a small well, but is it feasible? I have always been on city water or at a place where a well was already in operation so I don’t have any experience in this.
Folks … please share your thoughts and questions. THANK YOU !!!
Many of them cried; "Me no Alamo - Me no Goliad" and for most of them these were the last words they spoke.August 26, 2014 at 2:25 am #23306
I have no knowledge of how high your water table is or what the soil/bedrock conditions are but up here deep wells are pretty expensive to drill. If you have a high water table a shallow well might suffice but it begs the question of quality. Whatever goes on the lawns and on the streets will end up in the groundwater that a shallow well is drawing from, and if you are in a suburban area, that could be a lot of pesticides, oil, and such. If you did put in a well, consider including a hand pump for grid down scenarios. No fuel or technology required. I have a Simple Pump unit on mine.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.