Deer Hunter Revolution


AmMerc discusses what likely happens when hunting buddies move to go hot:

20 Million Deer hunters, guardians of freedom?

Deer Hunters And Mao

Read both the embedded links and the comments to each post.

RITR has some related thoughts.

One man is a target.

Two men are a team.

Three men is a more sustainable team.

Four men are two teams.

Et cetera.

Local, local, local.

40 responses to “Deer Hunter Revolution

  1. That picture is just TOO “wrong”. Smoke em if ya got em.

  2. Not to get into the bitchin match but IMHO some blogs speak a bit too well of the abilities of the State. Yeah I know all about underestimation and all that but step two cannot be defined until we have a handle on what precipitated action. Seemed obvious that people will take the side of the provider of their feast if you catch the drift.

    • Well said. Your comment has got me thinking… why isn’t this captain writing home in his spare time, instead of writing to us?
      Maybe his job is to write us?
      Stranger things have happened.

      • Well I would not go so far as that without more to base it on. It does not have to even be intentional or nefarious just human nature. Opfor is seemingly a much more known quantity than freefor, just the way of things. I don’t put a lot of faith in Elmer Fudd either since they have proven willing to throw us under the bus in the past. But then I dont see them as the real point of AM’s blog entry, that was directed here.

        • -posted over at RIR,copied here.

          Why does an officer with little kids and a wife back home spend so much time writing a blog “for us”. I fly in here and run my mouth for a few minutes, this guy posts what amounts to hours of research and prep damn near daily. I don’t think he’s doing the JK Rowling and writing notes on spare MRE toliet paper, either.

          His job is to post, to gain trust and legitamacy, to mis-inform.

  3. Regardless of what we may want, only about 2% will eventually actively participate at any given time. This mathematical basis is well documented. You can read many books that tell the same story, regardless of the circumstance. Over many years, I have found this to be quite accurate in many venues. For every 100 potential “fighters,” only 2 will pan out – having the will, drive, determination, and skill to succeed. Within the remaining 98, there lies another 2-10% who will prove directly useful in other ways – logistics, intel, training, funding, etc.

    What I see many tend to neglect in their thinking, is that without the voluntary will of The People behind a movement, said movement is doomed to fail before it gets started, as The People will succumb to propaganda from the “other” side, and eventually condemn and refuse to support your movement. This is where the real potential behind the 20 million (or whatever the number is) lies. Though they may not be a direct or indirect part of a movement, they may be well utilized in swaying the will of The People in support of the movement.

    A good 50% of any population is generally indifferent, and will move to whichever side they perceive benefits them most. Part of any plan should include ideas and techniques to keep these people aligned with the movement. The OPFOR will continue to make difficult to ignore or refuse promises to this group. Though I fully believe that the 20 million hunters (less 2%) will typically choose the easier path at the moment of truth, they can otherwise be pressed into service to the cause of negating the propaganda of the opposition. Every potential volunteer is, at a minimum, a propaganda fighter.

    • Sierra Mike writes: What I see many tend to neglect in their thinking, is that without the voluntary will of The People behind a movement, said movement is doomed to fail before it gets started, as The People will succumb to propaganda from the “other” side, and eventually condemn and refuse to support your movement.

      The will of the people produced what we have now. Government still doesn’t behave like it is advertised, no matter how much the 98% clap their hands for Tinkerbell.

      Here’s an alternative. The 2% need to improve their self-defense methods until they can stop the 98% from imposing their will on them. That requires a defense system that will hold against a ratio of 50 attackers to 1 defender. Defenders of home and hearth already need a 9:1 ratio of attackers to victims to lose, so all you need to do is improve your self-defense effectiveness by six times. (Hint: if the 2% stops paying taxes, a good chunk of the net taxpayer voters will follow. Get your head around the idea that politics itself is immoral and the logistics of the Bad People will collapse peacefully.)

      Though I fully believe that the 20 million hunters (less 2%) will typically choose the easier path at the moment of truth, they can otherwise be pressed into service to the cause of negating the propaganda of the opposition.

      We know this is true because the hunters in NRA have stopped the encroachment of gun control, right?

      Defensive Training Group writes: Restoration of Constitutional Government must be the objective, because everything complained about/suffered by a growing number of citizens for more decades than many of us have lived would be resolved by government following its mandates listed in the Constituiton.

      You plan to restore constitutional government using the same methods which have lost ground for two hundred years, right? Perhaps I should print up a stock of presidential election ballot forms now, so I can give them to future kulaks in white buses on their way to a “FEMA camp” for being “hoarders” or “speculators”.

      • Anon 12:23: While imperfect, Defensive Training Group’s overall response was a positive and overall true perspective. Rather denegrate others who are trying to add to the discussion, why not provide something positve rather than just being a contrarian.

        If you know so much, share it with others, or take your trolling self somewhere else.

  4. After reading all the 99.9% amicable (surprisingly) posts that differ on opinion and substance, I’ve concluded that AM has a very good point: 20,000,000 or 200,000,000 million deer hunters in the field, it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an overall objective. In essence, a Step was left out.

    1. 20,000,000 Deer Hunters
    2. Name Overall Objective as Restoration of Constitutional Government
    3. Fight Smart
    4. Victory!

    Restoration of Constitutional Government must be the objective, because everything complained about/suffered by a growing number of citizens for more decades than many of us have lived would be resolved by government following its mandates listed in the Constituiton. This is a nebulous subject, as many citizens aren’t educated on the Constitution and how the ‘checks and balances’ work, let alone the proper role of a central federal government balanced against the residual power of the several States in how the country is to be governed. Additionally, IMHO, part of the issue is that elected representatives are not subject to the same penalties as their constituents when commiting the same offense. And that’s also a part of Restoration: All citizens equal under the law. From President to newborn babe in the poorest family in the United States. Under a Restored Constitutional government, lady Justice would indeed, by necessity, be blind. “Plea” deals gone. Also gone would be the ‘convicted felon’ penalty suffered for life. Reinstatement of ‘paying the debt to society’ through prison time (non-paroled) would also have an immediate reinstatement of all rights once “the payment” was made (otherwise there’s no incentive for the citizen, and a new criminal class and enemy of the constitutional system is created). Have a SCOTUS Justice using international law as a basis for a decision? Impeachment. Have a Congressman/woman arrested for DUI or writes a bunch of bad checks or is found to be a tax cheat? Immediate recall. Not all the answers are here, of course, but I believe the point is made.

    The citizenry and their children would, by necessity, have to have some crash education available in the why’s and wherefore’s of the Constitution, which in and of itself, would be a difficult task, because part of Restoration is also the weaning of 100 plus million citizens from the teat of the public dole.

    Between now and then, there are great courses and books for the interested; a quick web search will reveal many. One such course is “Constitutional Literacy” by Michael Farris on DVD. No, it’s not on the movie circuit, costs about $50, but it’s worth it.

    Then, of course, the citizens would also have to accept their duty to keenly observe government actions and be quick to raise hell on any over-step (as we should have been doing all along). That means never trusting government to do anything it wasn’t made to do. Just as George Washington said so eloquently.

    A difficult task, to be sure, but not impossible. It’s been done before…..

    • Restoration of Liberty rings more bells than the problematic restoration of the Constitution. Restore it to what point? In what form?
      As for the U.S. Constitution, that we were all fairly indoctrinated to worship much as we were the flag, someone would have to prove it was not at the base of our difficulties. Not an easy task.

      • alan w. mullenax

        How is the Constitution the source of our problems. It’s piece of paper.

        Can I ask you a question? We have three founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. For the purposes of this discussion, please consider only the first ten amendments.

        How specifically is the Constitution at fault for our present condition?

        If the gallery would be so kind, please refrain from responding until Rhodes does. Thank you in advance.

      • outlawpatriot

        Crickets.

        Whatsa matta? Afraid to engage? It’s the internet for Christ’s sake. We’re not face to face.

      • …VERY important side note(re-post) — The (national) flag worshiping didn’t start until 1892 when the socialist/collectivist Francis Bellamy penned the pledge of allegiance as part of the task to subjugate the populace into a top-down centralized socialist utopia. His cousin, Edward Bellamy, described this process in his international best seller “Looking Backward: 2000-1887”. ….and Now all i get is arguments from well meaning patriots concerning their collectivist/nationalist conditioning. Its a hard hit mentally when you realize that you have been used as a tool for the collectivist elite. Today i fly the “come and take it” flag at my house — I took down the the other one a few years back.

  5. It’s funny.
    I go back to the stuff posted here six months ago and it reads completely differently.
    Just goes to show the extent one can un-fuck their thinking in a relatively short period of time, though I’ll hazard that most of my learning here comes from the comments section.
    Abrasive at times. Outright hostile at others. Still, I’m sure the founding fathers had some short, sharp conversations with each other too.

    • Lastbox, could you create an .onion web site that allows people to register pledges similar to ‘I promise to move to the free state project’s choice of location if 20,000 people sign up’?

      The creator of an account gets to edit the text of the promise, which could be things like: “I promise to chip in $100 towards little Timmy’s new crutches if 20 other people agree by a week before Christmas” and “I promise to stop paying income tax if a million other people agree by April 1”. Once the first pledge is made against the promise, the promise is locked from editing. Make tabular summary screens like: title of pledge with count of signups, which clicks through to pledge text followed by table of pledgers’ identities and comments. Give pledgers a paragraph to identify themselves, which is enough to specify a voice like “Anonymous from WRSA who likes tax protests”, but not necessarily a person.

      Of course all of this can be spammed, but the spam will obviously be spam. There is a lot of agreement out there which is currently hidden and suppressed by the social penalties of being the first weirdo to champion it in public.

      • Kerodins been making progress already on an arms company and a location out west for such a thing,anon.
        And it’s past the pledge stage. They are doing it. Good on them! His blog is below. I wish them all well.

        CIII

  6. Among those 20M, there are useful trigger fingers with minds to match, but as I posted on AM, it’s a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff. One has to talk to them and figure out who is most likely right minded and is in a position to be conditioned, willing to put the effort into it. The great majority only care about feeling like a man by shooting a big gun and killing something, keeping the blood off their hands, and watching football until the processor calls to tell them their cuts are ready. There are a few though, that are hooked on being a predator, like the chase, are not revolted by pulling out the entrails of their kill and will savor the hours spent cutting thier prize into bite sized chunks.

  7. I don’t mind the pulling out the entrails, but I draw the line at cutting my prize into bite sized chunks, as I am not a cannibal. I am of course, referring to killing human beings. Well, ifn’ there hain’t no time fer guttin’, there may be enough tahm fer a little scalpin’. Heh. ( The guttin’ thing is to give their buddies what gets detailed to recover bodies, time to contemplate whether their unfortunate comrades were gutted pre or post mortem.) Yeah, I know, not nice, mais ce la guerre. Okay, okay, I’ll only do it when you’re not looking. The 20 million thing? Some will, some won’t. I’ll hang with the ones that will, and numbers don’t mean anything till the game is over, Ja?

  8. Let us not forget that engaging a military force would not be the preferred method of action anyway. People, all people, have homes, routines, and other weaknesses much easier exploited than the madness of firing 30 cal at a tank. The entire premise is a straw man.

  9. robroysimmons

    Volk and AM made the mistake of conflating insurgency tactics with politics (strategy). Obviously they were wrong to do so because they got everyone in a kerfluffle. But AM is especially right FreeFor is nearly a political non-entity and it shows just by reading his antagonists.

  10. The truth is as most times, in the middle.
    We do not need a FreeFor war department filled with “officers” in order to fight an effective insurgency. We also cannot expect X number of gun owners to spontainiously condense into a FreeFor ninja “A” team.

    The whole concept stems from the fact that FreeFor is waiting. We are waiting for something to happen that gives us the cover to openly move. Some event that jars the minds of those we associate with so that you can begin to have the conversations required to organize and train.
    When that event happens it will be to late.
    You will be behind the OODA loop of OpFor. You will be working against the clock to get that entire organization built before they get to you.
    Those that advocate the “20 million hunters” strategy know this. They know that it will be impossible so they reason that they do not have to accomplish it. They reason that if something happens everyone else will just act along with them and the end result will be what they want to acheive.
    That is a fools plan.
    We need to organize at the local level. You need to get at least a small team together that can be trusted and build the logistical tail that will support it. That includes Intel gathering and processing.

    • I have to ask do you have your head up your ass?
      What side of the equation are you on? You rail against AM because he says you need higher up top level organization and your 20 million deer hunters is fantasy. You explain how you need none of that organization. I agree you dont need that top level organization then you lay into me and blow 40 lines of bullshit about the need for higher level organization. Are you fucking retarded or are you intentionally being a contrarian asshole?

      I will entertain your bullshit for a very short time. I really dont care how YOU do it. If you want to be the lone deer hunter ninja then rock out with your cock out. I will lead as many men an women who will follow me or I will follow someone who leads better than I do. I will expect any resistance leader to lead as many as they can possibly gather and no more. For some that may be a 5 man team for others that may be a 5 platoon company.
      Now I have explained the other processes several times before but you may not have been around at that point so I will hit the highnotes again for you.
      Recruiting is done locally.
      Logistics are done as locally as possible but units will utilize secure comms methods (IRC, TOR with coded messages) to network for more nonstandard needs.
      There is no higher level leadership than the basic maneuver unit.
      Units perform IAW the following methodology.
      Strategy:
      Delegitimize the existing government and its structures.
      Replace them with local alternatives that encourage self reliance and independance.
      All tactics conform to that strategic goal and are formulated by individual units IAW local conditions.
      ROE:
      Shaping and Logistical operations now and only shifts to Dynamic operations if OpFor forces that matter.
      Never frak the insurgency
      Never attack means of communications
      Never cause unnecessary harm to the population.

      Thats it
      If you can do all that by yourself then like I said ROWYCO.
      You are a unit of one.
      For those of us still functioning in the rational world we need to get moving.

      • awesome standalone post for later today, G

      • And here I thought I was pessimistic. You’re brilliant Aesop, but sometimes brilliance misses the forest for the trees. In the end, ALL of the action is engaged exclusively by individuals and so whatever the future holds, it will inherently–and EXCLUSIVELY–be the decisions of individuals. Everyone likes to pooh-pooh that and say, “Right. Now let’s move on.” And then they move on as if they never took a moment’s notice of what the hell it means and what it implies.

        Hellfires and drones don’t kill people…

        • Your right its hopeless.
          Because we dont have million dollar helos and gunships its all over.

          Do you seriously think I am going to be sitting in the middle of the fucking woods with a company size element just waiting for some asshat in a flight suit to mush us?
          I didnt answer your one specific question about helos and so you conclude I have the underpants strategy.
          I aint the Taliban and I will not fight this from some forest retreat.
          This is not Afghanistan.
          You are right. If you try to fight this thing like a conventional insurgency from remote wilderness locations yes you will get squished like the Taliban.
          Thats not how we roll around here.
          We will not live in the wilderness we will live in the abandoned house down the street from OPFOR. We will live under the bridge near his duty station. We will live in the strip of woods next to the offramp he takes every morning. We will live in the abandoned strip mall he passes on his patrol. And then we will fade back into kakis and laptop bags and mix in with the business crowd. You think that gunship will open up on a market full of people? I dont.
          Maybe we are just talking past one another here. I do not advocate the traditional hide in the woods insurgency regardless of how big the unit gets. I really advocate small teams of about 20 living in suburban areas. Operating more like James Bond than Chi. Of those 20 only about 6 of those are shooters the others are to provide support in various ways.
          I dont really factor in atttack helos because I dont see them as an issue. I dont see hellfires screaming into suburban population centers.
          it may happen but I think we kill the birds before that ever becomes a problem. Useing them for searching yeah thats an issue that will be overcome (dummy set ups. heat reflecting tarps, being where signatures are supposed to be).
          Just FYI, I have done SAR work using FLIR so I know a little bit about it.

          • Ha, for once I got you both beat on tactics. I figure the best strategy is to persuade the guys firing the hellfires, not to fire them.

            They’re all losing strategies, probably. Still, maybe one of ’em will work. Plus, speaking for myself, I’m prepared to switch strategies!

  11. Another Anon

    The tactics and the fight are less important than an agreed upon goal. yes about 2-3% will fight and 3x that will help, so what?

    No one agrees on what Constitutional government even means. For every “the state can’t do that” there is a “general welfare clause”

    I suppose we could go to “states rights” but what happens when those people in those states want to do things (guns and abortion come to mind) people in other states feel are protected or prohibited. Than we are back to square one.

    Also its not 3% of the whole populace we are talking about, its 3% of a mostly (not entirely though) White conservative populace at best. The barely English speaking Hispanics that make California and several other States in Mexico Del Norte and the illiterate Blacks of say Detroit or parts of many other States don’t want your governance . Not sure about the Asians either. Figure with the White Liberals that 70% of the populace directly opposed.

    These numbers also don’t include other groups, anarchists , fascists, White separatists and White nationalists (groups getting to be as big as y’all)

    That means its 3% of at most 30% or in reality 9/10 of a percent or at 2% 6/10th of a percent of the population, that is not enough to impose their will on all of CONUS,

    Such a groups, well agreed upon terms might consider a smaller victory, s smaller area with a population of determined patriots and good resources might be an alternative to nothing. It an ugly pill to consider but it beats “winning” in the Charley Sheen sense only to fight a Leftist insurgency , a Race War and the remains of OpFor backed with Chinese money.

    If you figure it at 1/3 of the White populace, thats about 50 million or so, minus 5-10 if the White nationalists don’t want to go along (they’d be fine as neighbors) and for die offs and aging so you need land enough for 40 million or so, near the population of Spain or Italy and some extra space for a less dense populace (the basic ideology scales poorly for dense cities) and if the birth rate picks up.

    Make sure you have good sea access and contiguousness defensible borders and you are good to go. All that has to be worked out is nukes and water, not easy but doable.

    It might even be possible to do it without a shot fired, Constitutionally and lawfully.

    The Archdruid Report’s “How it Happened” spins a very possible scenario

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

    • With a near 50/50 split between Dem/Rep, and clearly everything from just off center to extremist in both camps, it’s clear that this nation is not likely to be restored to E Pluribus Unum. Unum is dead a great percentage of the Pluribus is a mooching class on both sides of the isle.

      so if there is little to no chance of restoring the constitution, or regaining lost liberty, what is the fight for?

      The greatest percentage have no dog in this fight. They aren’t even aware there is a fight. They are told to “be proud that they have an oppurtunity to participate in this great democratic process” and so they are. They’ll vote for one of the two similes and cheer for they man Tuesday night. When it’s over, they’ll go back to bitching and griping about the winner. Some will cheer for the underdog and others will follow the leader. It’s no difference.

      After a successful revolution, they’ll again pick sides and follow the leader or root for the underdog. It’s their way. They are indifferent. They’re irrelevant.

      It’s us that matter. What do WE want? What are we willing to spill blood for, even if it’s our own?

      I want to enjoy freedom. To walk with liberty. I know what’s right and will follow only that.

  12. robroysimmons hit the nail on the head here: this argument is all over the place (whether you agree or disagree with AM and Volk) because it lumps two things together (strategy and tactics) and leaves out one very important subject (operational art) that links the two. Discussing tactics without strategy is mental masturbation. The former must derive from the latter. But it requires an operational construct to link the two.

  13. I never wrote that there needed to be a “FreeFor War Department” and claiming that I did is simply poor debating tactics. People seem to be putting words into my mouth.

    I pointed out that to be effective there needs to be at least a basic level of organization. Other than a few die hard believers in the “spontaneous action” theory most people don’t have a problem with some sort of basic level of organization. Something that I do not see in existence right now.

    It is relatively easy to build a Company out of 24 fire teams focusing on Squad level operations. It is easy to build a Battalion out of 3 or 4 Companies and focus on Platoon level operations. It is hard to build a Battalion out of 400 individuals. Really the question remains, how organized do you have to be before Lexington and Concord? Remember that the militia was fully organized on paper at that point, and it was a local organization supporting a long term strategic objective.

    • Form the fire teams, equip, and train.

      Squads can then be formed.

      Networking s/b ongoing in your local AO.

      Working initial objective?

      Contribute to ongoing delegitimization of .gov by any means necessary, while developing infrastructure to support establishment and continuity of individual freedom (ECIF) ops in your AO.

      Got PATCON?

    • My words and I simply wanted to make sure I dismissed the idea that some people have that there needs to be a “Colonel” in every militia. I didnt intend to poke at you AM I really just still had the bad taste left over from the fat peice of donut shit from Indiana that was on that Discovery Channel program the other night.

  14. A government cannot win against an insurgency unless it faces them with 10 to 1 odds. That’s ten to one, ten rifle toting troops to one insurgent. In addition, you must then add in the fifteen support troops required to keep the rifle toters in the field.

    The US military AND all of the cops in the United States don’t add up to that level.

    In any insurgency, anything less than an outright win by the state is a win by the insurgents. The United States cannot win ANY insurgency inside itself under any known scenario. Even if it used nuclear weapons.

    • Another Anon

      yes true, the numbers are spot on. Understand an insurgency also has to be able to govern to fully win or all they’ll be is an occupying force and that leaves them vulnerable to counter insurgency or counter revolutionaries.

  15. “How is the Constitution the source of our problems. It’s piece of paper.”

    Brilliant line, so true. And it cuts both ways—it ain’t gonna fix anything either.

    • outlawpatriot

      It’s a piece of paper.

      It isn’t the source of problems and it doesn’t fix things.

      I asked nicely that you refrain until Rhodes responded.

      Do I have to sic Dan on you? 🙂

  16. Pat Hines,

    You should study the Malaysian insurgency from the Empires point of view, it is quite illuminating as to how an effective counter-insurgency campaign can be successful. Those “10 to 1” odds you quote are something I’ve never heard before, where did you get them?

  17. Now, see, I come here for the stimulating articles and discussions, but I STAY for the sheep pR0n.

    I can hear the cheesy 70’s guitar twang just looking at that pic.

  18. From the Malay Insurgency study (done years ago at the Army War College) , wherein Britain had about 85,000 troops fielded (plus their train) and beat the approximately 8000 insurgents. There were some unique things about that too. First, because of the terrain, the insurgency was rather easily cut off from supply from outside resources. Basically, the British surrounded the insurgents and walked them into one location and rounded them up when they ran out of food, ammo, and so forth.

    Yes, I know that one rather well.