Stay Behinds

In 73 days regime change will be an accomplished fact.    

My position will be overrun on 20 JAN 08.  Dying in place is not a viable option. Surrender is.  Some may escape.  Others may choose evasion and resistance.  Among the most effective resisters will be those who have prepared themselves to be Stay Behinds.

A Stay Behind force is left in position to conduct a specified mission when the remainder of the force withdraws or retires from the area. Sometimes the best way to get into the enemy’s rear is to hunker down and survive while his front rolls over you. From the British Auxiliary Units to the Nazi Werwolf to the Fedayeen Saddam, Stay Behinds planned, trained and equipped for Irregular Warfare before they stayed behind. NATO had an extensive Stay Behind army , and the Italian contingent, Gladio, became famous among conspiracy buffs back in 1990, and was resurrected to serve as a truther boogie man in 2005.

Make good use of these 73 days.  Many things that are comparatively easy to accomplish in the permissive present will become much more difficult, complicated and visible in the non-permissive future.

UPDATE 20110207: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119640.pdf NATO’s Secret Armies Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Idea War, IW, Resisters

15 responses to “Stay Behinds

  1. suek

    Maybe it’s time to read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. It worked for Obama…time to turn the tables!

  2. I have read it. I don’t think non-leftists can use his tactics effectively.

    I’m an Anti-Leftist. Also a Cultural Revolutionary. I have given up on Republicans. I’m no longer identifying myself as a conservative, but I still caucus with them on most issues. I reject the term Right-Wing as a description of my politics. That’s the enemy’s term.

    Radical Cultural Revolutionaries would have a lot of old school principles, ethics, and scruples making Alinsky tactics too loathsome to employ.

  3. suek

    I’m not sure _all_ of them are loathsome. Most of them – yes. They require acts most anti-leftists would consider immoral. I think the one most applicable is the “make them observe all their own rules”…but it might not work, since imo, they’re corrupt and don’t have a sense of obligation to observe the rules unless it suits them.

    So…if not conservative, what then?

  4. That’s still being sorted out.

    Some sort of coalition of American Exceptionalists, libertarians, people who want to be left the hell alone, Gulchers, Constitutionalists, Appleseeds, bitter clingers, Christians and Patriots.

    UPDATE: Add entrepreneurial frontiersmen to the list above.

  5. suek

    If you jump into the deep end, you better be prepared to sink or swim.

    The problem I see is that if success is attained, there’s a lot of dead weight that comes along with it. In a dominantly urban society, there’s a real need to be dependent on government functionality. In the Founding Father’s days, the population was primarily rural, and able to do for itself. That’s not true today – which is why we have some of the problems we have.

    I guess my question is whether the country is _able_ to return to the ideals of earlier times – or are we now living so much in each other’s pockets that we have to compromise our ideals. I’m thinking on a general governmental level, not on an individual level…

  6. There were urban areas in earlier times. City-dwellers had municipal governments maintaining order and providing a limited number of services.

    Americans didn’t used to care so much about Washington, because the governments that they had to worry about were city, county and state. We as a people have abandoned Federalism. We need to get back to that.

    The productive people will not carry the free riders for long.

    What we need is a readjustment of American attitudes to make free riders socially unacceptable. Children need to be raised to accept the duties of citizenship, including the duty to prepare oneself to be productive, to keep a job, to not breed until ready to raise a child without government assistance, to pull your own weight. The entitlement mentally must be made socially unacceptable. This will be the work of three generations.

  7. suek

    >>We as a people have abandoned Federalism. We need to get back to that.>>

    Agreed. We may need to actually go broke to accomplish it, though.

  8. suek, city people need self-defense and self-sufficiency tools far more than rural folks do, because city-folks need it more and they ain’t going to get it from the government and they don’t have it cause they live in a city.

    Crime and defending people from it, is the single most important factor for people in Britain and Europe once the riots and gang land warfare stuff starts happening under the aegis of social welfare.

    We have the tools and the protection for folks. The government won’t, not under an obama.

  9. Why do city people need self-defense and self-sufficiency more than rural folks, ymar?

    Urbanites think differently from us rubes in small town and rural Fly Over Country. They can maintain anonymity in their ‘hoods and not concern themselves with their reputations. They don’t care what their neighbors think of them. They are mostly Renters.

    Crabgrass Jacksonians see the homeowner on his modest suburban lawn as the hero of the American story. The Crabgrass Jacksonian may wear green on St. Patrick’s Day; he or she might go to a Catholic Church and never listen to country music (though, increasingly, he or she probably does); but the Crabgrass Jacksonian doesn’t just believe, she knows that she is as good an American as anybody else, that she is entitled to her rights from Church and State, that she pulls her own weight and expects others to do the same.

  10. suek

    I understand Ymar’s approach – he thinks more in the sense of personal safety. In that sense, he’s right – though even his approach is unlikely to save someone from a drive-by shot.
    The “renters” mindset, though, is more applicable. They are not responsible for anything. Even the owners have to go to city hall for water, sewage, electricity etc. There simply isn’t the mindset that “I need x…I better get busy”. The mindset is “I need x … who’s going to fix it/get it for me?” “I need transportation to get to work…why doesn’t the city have a transportation system?” “I need safety…why doesn’t the city hire more police” (that one’s in Y’s bailiwick!) “I need a hospital…why don’t we have one?” (After Y gets done with the bad guys!)
    In other words, there’s no personal responsibility in city dwellers. They’re usually temporary, and if they’re not actually part of the “machine”, they just float through life on the labor of others. Sure they work, and sure they pay taxes for what they use, but they don’t know how to go about getting what they need if it isn’t provided. They’d stand at the edge of a field and demand that it yield wheat!
    And those who are part of the machine that provides all that they need, who see to it that life runs relatively smoothly in the cities, find their success in supplying the needs of others. So the relationship is one of mututal co-dependency…they need each other. They’re happy as pigs in mud. The problem is that people get ambitious. They’d rather be a big frog in a big pond than a big frog in a little pond. The more people a politician can get to need him, the bigger he is, and the bigger his pond. And people would rather have someone take care of them, so they’re easily convinced that letting the city/state/federal government take care of them is a good thing. In fact, if Ymar takes on a bad guy, the government is likely to take _him_ to task. You’re supposed to just take it – and let the police prosecute. You might as well have no individual rights, if the right to defend oneself is taken away. That’s what happens in a city, though.

    Religion comes into it as well. In times past, Christian children were taught that Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, and henceforth “would earn their bread with the sweat of their brow”. Work was noble, dependence on another was despicable. We each had our life’s work and to be idle was the devil’s work shop. Not so any more. A farmer’s work is never done. A city man works 8 to 5. After that is play time. Families are small. That’s not because of the pay, that’s because women are out working, not homemakers. Couples want a lifestyle that require both partners to work – not for the basic support of the family, but so they can have more “toys”. The whole culture has shifted it’s focus.

    The Constitutution was written in a time that had a different culture, different ideals, different standards. We’re here and now. Some of us may be anachromisms…we may be in the minority, and the question is whether we’ll be able to convince the majority that they need to get back to work. We need to boot politicians out of their full time jobs – it’s their jobs that make them need “clients”…the population that doesn’t want to be self supporting. The Constitution doesn’t fit the ideals of the majority population any more, it seems. I don’t know if we can go back. At least, not without breaking all the toys and starting to rebuild all over again.

  11. You have captured the philosophical divide between the ownership society and the entitlement mentality, suek.

    Once they do away with the Constitution, they have made mortal enemies of millions who have solemnly sworn to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

  12. suek

    This is interesting, and relevant. It does raise a different question…sort of a which came first – chicken or egg…

    http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/11/gop-must-win-over-urban-america-to.html

  13. “I need safety…why doesn’t the city hire more police” (that one’s in Y’s bailiwick!) “I need a hospital…why don’t we have one?” (After Y gets done with the bad guys!)

    Becareful there, suek, I might get a big ego from hearing that too many times ; )

    On a more serious note, I am honored that you believe so of me. I came to a decision a long time ago concerning whether I would maintain my faith in mercy or compassion or whether I would drop these high cost standards for the much more easy path of narcissism and selfishness.

    Believe it or not, suek, but I might as well been a Quaker while I was growing up. I abhored violence, I hated fighting, and I was more afraid of what getting angry would make me do than of getting hurt in a fight.

    But if you behave like that, if you had behaved like me, and if you had my faith in compassion and mercy, you will eventually come to a crossroads and then you will have to make a decision.

    Do you continue in your state of weakness, pacifism, and non-violence, more afraid of yourself than of what others are doing to the weak and the powerless, or do you destroy the limitations placed upon your thoughts, behavior, and emotions in order to acquire the absolute strength necessary to be worthy of using mercy and compassion?

    I always said that mercy and compassion are for the strong, not the weak. You can’t protect others if you can’t protect yourself.

    And so the saying has been proven out. Only the most merciful and compassionate of children can grow up to be crueler and more ruthless than mass murderers and serial killers. Because it is necessary to help the victims of mass murderers and serial killers.

    P.S.

    I know very well how Democrats and fake liberals felt about Iraq. I felt the same thing. I feared a slippery slope result from the unilateral invasion. But fear is not a sign of strength, suek. It does not make you worthy of following the tenets of mercy or compassion. Taking counsel of your fears will not save anyone you care about.

    A harsh lesson, but I believe a useful one: to me if nobody else. One reason why I despise Democrats almost more than I despise and hate terrorists. The terrorists grew up in Arabia and powerless: constantly needing to prey on victims simply to make themselves feel better about being abused by the more powerful in turn. They didn’t have as much an opportunity as me or Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama to choose, to make a choice between the Light and the Darkness of the human soul.

    I will never forgive those like Ted Kennedy that sacrificed the weak and the defenseless simply because they were inconvenient to them. I respect terrorists and fanatics more than that.

  14. Pingback: Resisters: Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen Fort Up « Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group