This is the main problem – like it or not.
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents – For emphasis – extracted from:
From Hope and Change to Sedition and Treason
30 Apr 20 (THIRTY-THIRD article in a series).
In 2009, Barack Obama was historically inaugurated as the nation’s first African-American President and as he entered office, he did so with sights set on a doctrine of counterinsurgency as outlined in his administration’s US Government Guide to Counterinsurgency (2009.) With the levels of corruption and criminality demonstrated by Obama over the course his two anti-American presidential terms, it is reasonable to ask whether this president turned his own counterinsurgency strategy against the United States itself. A quick glimpse at today’s headlines – topics that the Q folks have been privy to for years – tells us we’re likely on the mark and that the evidence exists to demonstrate it.
The Mason Jar
</> Examination of President Obama’s 2009 Insurgency Doctrine
</> Consideration as to whether President Obama leveraged his own doctrine on insurgency as the blueprint for infiltrating the United States
</> Presentation of evidence supporting claims
</> Qanon drop #4008
With this series of articles now eclipsing thirty, I have to leave it to new readers to catch-up mostly on their own. The subject matter here is just too deep, entangled and encompassing to recapitulate it with each new article.
If you are new please consider seeing HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS at the bottom: hypothesis, team update, disclaimers, graphics and timeline.
*The graphics are very helpful in consuming large quantities of information succinctly.
Rules for Radicals
Later on Wednesday, Qanon posted the linked guide along with several extracts from it, which we will dig into looking for contemporaneous evidence in support. In the even that time allows for it, we’ll take a deeper dive into the 67-page document but for now, we’ll focus on what was outlined for us.
Here is the first extract:
Irregular warfare is far more varied than conventional conflict: hence the importance of an intellectual framework that is coherent enough to provide guidance, and flexible enough to adapt to circumstances.
Irregular warfare is the Left’s favorite topic and we can look to the Obama/Clinton bible for their playbook in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. From Penguin Random House,
“First published in 1971, Rules for Radicals is Saul Alinsky’s impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know “the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one.” Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.”
Look and sound familiar? It should.
One prominent manifestation of Alinsky’s work, in terms of it interfacing with the American public in tangible ways, is the ‘social justice’ agenda whereby the disaffected ascribe to a victim status of choice and then engage in infighting to determine the biggest victim, the largest extension of entitlement and the greatest degree of off-set from contemporary society and traditional norms. That last point is the haymaker and it’s a simple concept.
The social justice agenda functions by throwing-out emotional hooks contextually social (sexual identity, sexual preference, racism, sexual harassment, etc.) and luring people in with heartfelt angles. Once people are on board, those sentiments are then leveraged to move people towards unrelated politically desirable positions. These people are often called “useful idiots” because they only see (or at least advance) their political position through one lens – social justice.
Social justice functions to drive the narrative as far left as possible and upon societal reconciliation, when things subsequently center-up on the back end of a social stimulus as they always do, the middle ground fulcrum point – or center position – will have been nudged left by means of the American public reconciling their own individual sentiments and emotions. This often results in small shifts in personal positions and the net effect over time is a slow but steady change in America’s societal fabric rendering leftward movement.
A perfect contemporaneous example is one that I see about daily in the context of public education (depending on your state of residency) – girls whom say (identify) that they are boys being permitted by law to use the boys restroom and vice versa. A couple of decades ago, that would have been a California thing (first law circa 1987) but today it’s the law in most states. That’s what happens when your local government (school board) is infiltrated and overtaken by people whom are organized, have numbers, have a plan and have motivation (ask the folks in Boise, ID.) It’s akin to deteriorating vision – you don’t realize it has diminished (or that you’ve been infiltrated) until you try on a friend’s new frames and immediately learn that you, too, need glasses (or that your hometown now resembles Berkley.)
Obama’s Greatest Weapon
Here’s the second extract.
American counterinsurgency practice rests on a number of assumptions: that the decisive effort is rarely military (although security is the essential prerequisite for success); that our efforts must be directed to the creation of local and national governmental structures that will serve their populations, and, over time, replace the efforts of foreign partners; that superior knowledge, and in particular, understanding of the ‘human terrain’ is essential; and that we must have the patience to persevere in what will necessarily prove long struggles.
What was Obama’s greatest weapon? What is the one thing that he had that was different, better and more highly effective than virtually any other president before him and to be honest, since? And I’m not talking about his enormous foreign, domestic, unconstitutional and illegal spying operation which is currently feeling the full scrutiny of the USDOJ.
It is Obama’s oratory prowess. The man could sell ice to Eskimos in the middle of a blizzard; he could charm a snake charmer. The man can orate with supreme competence and it makes him absolutely lethal as a politico in the trade statecraft.
Every president has a military but the military is not a viable mode as Alinsky notes. Obama’s skills as an orator are what made him so destructively successful in his two terms, which were rooted in pushing anti-American legislation and policy by means of coercion and the leveraging of emotions and rhetoric. Alinskyites like Obama have essentially programmed much of the American public to park their brains in lief of “thinking” with their hearts. It’s had devastating effects on the country and by design.
We’d be remiss in not recognizing that in-part what made Obama so popular in the literal sense is that he received (and continues to receive) strict allegiance and devotion from a complicit and disingenuous mainstream media. It is also absolutely critical to understand that the same power brokers whom pulled on Obama’s puppet strings are the same ones pulling on the MSM’s. The MSM didn’t report on Obama rather they delivered canned talking points and narrative to boost his image against the backdrop of un-American legislation and policy. In other words, they sold him like the mainstream and Hollywood sells all of their idols and icons. That package deal was unbelievable formidable as we can now all see.
It’s not that much different today, really. It’s just that the sentiment is reversed. The media is really no more robust now than they were then. All they’ve done is flip the switch to reverse the flow from adoration towards Obama to pure hatred for Mr. Trump. It’s still the same horse shit – it just smells different.
Federalism Cuts Both Ways
The following represents examples of evidence whereby Obama’s actions and decisions began to parallel what we’d expect to see if the insurgency donctrine’s principles were pragmatically mapped on to the United States. This evidence is sourced from a Govering.com article circa 2016 and it’s written from a left leaning perspective on Obama’s dealings with Federalism, which is at the heart of the matter here just as it is in the reopening of the country. As you know there is a developing standoff between federal priorities and directives and resistant Democratic states relative to the easing of guidelines.
-In May 2009, Obama issued an executive order discouraging federal agencies from enacting regulations that would preempt state laws (giving states greater latitude, which contributes to the aforementioned developing standoff.)
-In 2009, Obama recruited governors to head the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, and chose a Republican governor as his ambassador to China. State officials were named to head the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-Obama’s law gave more than a third of the spending to states, originally pegged at $787 billion, whereby it went to the state or through the state government.
Obama’s stimulus package created momentum whereby the president could fiscally grease the skids of struggling states and coerce them to adopt his policies in exchange for cold hard cash. Consider this from Governing.com,
“The best-known example was Race to the Top, a contest among states to get a share of $4.35 billion in federal school funding. The catch was that, to stand a good chance of getting this money, states had to adopt education policies that the Obama administration backed, such as expanding charter schools, linking teacher and principal evaluations to student performance, and adopting common curriculums (sic).”
“The stimulus provided a lifeline for states awash in red ink following the recession, primarily by giving them money for Medicaid and schools. The law offered additional funds to help states extend unemployment benefits, and helped pay for infrastructure improvements that included broadband, high-speed rail, bridge repairs and road repaving.”
Again from our source article,
“The stimulus marked the first time since President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which included contests for municipalities to distinguish themselves as “model cities,” that a president had used state and local competitions so extensively. The Obama administration would return to them time and time again.
“When Obama couldn’t get his agenda through Congress, he relied more heavily on federal agencies. When Republican states were hesitant to help, Obama turned to Democratic governors, local leaders, or whoever was willing to help him make changes. “The policy goals,” Dinan says, “will generally prevail.””
Now contrast everything above against verbiage from the federal guide. In order to do that, I’ve inserted the analog or other in (parentheses) for context.
“that our efforts (Obama’s) must be directed to the creation of local and national (state) governmental structures that will serve their populations, and, over time, replace the efforts of foreign partners (replace the local/state agenda as determined by the constituents in that locale); that superior knowledge (Obama knows best as supported by intelligence and what has been learned from real insurgency operations on foreign soil), and in particular, understanding of the ‘human terrain’ (straight-up psychological warfare/propaganda/social programming/mass manipulation, etc.) is essential; and that we must have the patience (long-term plan with short-terming timing relevant to now) to persevere in what will necessarily prove long struggles (which are now coming to an end as the plan manifests in its final stages).”
One and the same, no? Did Obama take the lessons that the American military learned in insurgency operations abroad and turn them against the United States to infiltrate its government?
America is the Ultimately Ripe Modern Environment
Here is the third extract.
Insurgency, however, can and will flourish in the modern environment. The strains created by globalization, by the collapse of weak state structures, by demographic, environmental, and economic pressures, by the ease of cooperation among insurgent groups and criminals, and by the appearance of destructive radical ideologies, all augur a period in which free and moderate governance is at risk.
That Obama’s doctrine on insurgency claims that it “can and will flourish in the modern environment” ought to have the hair on everyone’s neck standing on end. Obama not only acknowledged the strains created by his Globalist positions, he leveraged them toward political ends; as the doctrine elaborates on areas like demographics (race baiting and sown social division/social justice agenda), environmental (Paris Climate Accord and mandated federal regulations), economic (the totality of Obama’s economic policies where detrimental to the US at a wholesale level) and cooperating insurgent groups (Antifa, for one.)
Insurgency Accomplishes Infiltration
This last bit is the opening paragraph from the Executive Summary contained in the original document and Q posted it in full. We’ll break it up and briefly comment accordingly as we wrap-up all of this. Again, inserts in (parentheses) are mine.
“Insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify or challenge political control of a region (states and cities). As such, it is primarily a political struggle, in which both sides use armed force (leveraging law enforcement at all levels [try to go play with your kids in a public park – that’s local police saying no, not federal]) to create space for their political, economic and influence activities to be effective. Insurgency is not always conducted by a single group with a centralized, military-style command structure, but may involve a complex matrix of different actors with various aims, loosely connected in dynamic and non-hierarchical networks (network of cities and states.)”
Does not that resemble what Obama instituted with his local and state outreach efforts as propelled by Trillions in federal stimulus dollars; with 1/3 of it flowing directly to or through the states? That he placed caveats (must implement his policies) to receive said funds?
For Obama to leverage the doctrine’s principles against the US at least two things would have to happen: a) he would have to development of a pragmatic framework for operating and leveraging the federal apparatus and its authority and power and b) he would need a certain number of States to be on-board at best and co-opted or leveraged at worst. Getting them all would never be possible but if you can get the lion’s share, the full weight of a plurality of states plus the federal apparatus against the remaining states is an untenable and losing situation.
It’s important to note here that Obama’s continued strategy, just as he recruited governors early in his first term, took the form of recruiting the mayors from many of America’s finest cities as his partners. For much of his second term, those were his pawns. A quick COVID-19 sidebar as we all sit at home, gubernatorial and mayoral control have never been more important than they are that this precise moment in history, have they? Is that by happenstance or by design?
Interestingly, although Obama was intent on exploiting Federalism to achieve objectives, he was also required to defend against it in his approaches. Most things cut both ways in statecraft. So, to answer the earlier question is yes, there is a resemblance in both form and function that Obama mapped his insurgency doctrine onto the United States.
Recalling what was stated earlier about Obama’s oratory prowess, consider this, which speaks for itself.
“To be successful, insurgencies require charismatic leadership, supporters, recruits, supplies, safe havens and funding (often from illicit activities).”
When you see “recruits” and as someone whom is intimately familiar with the field, I’d encourage you to take a very long, hard look at the indoctrination process that occurs within the majority of public educational institutions. The curricula therein are loaded with revisionist history and social justice and political correctness objective. In many ways they are antithetical to most traditional and Conservative values and principles.
If things weren’t nefarious enough, the remaining aspects of this are chilling comparatively speaking to what we have learned and are learning about Obama’s two terms.
“They only need the active support of a few enabling individuals, but the passive acquiescence of a large proportion of the contested population will give a higher probability of success. This is best achieved when the political cause of the insurgency has strong appeal, manipulating religious, tribal or local identity to exploit common societal grievances or needs.”
Let’s just translate this third point as follows – To be successful, Obama only needs a few active supporters who can function as enabling individuals (think of all the politicians and others on the Left whom pander to victims and special interest groups) because the majority of the population will just accept what is being forced down their throats. That’s what it means to acquiesce and when that happens, laws are enacted that go against the grain of the majority of the public (there’s nothing more important than each individual American’s fidelity to civic responsibility.) It’s most effective with the aforementioned emotional hook that allows for people to be herded into political positions.
Insurgents seek to gain control of populations through a combination of persuasion, subversion and coercion while using guerrilla tactics to offset the strengths of government security forces. Their intent is usually to protract the struggle, exhaust the government and win sufficient popular support to force capitulation or political accommodation. Consequently, insurgencies evolve through a series of stages, though the progression and outcome will be different in almost every case.
Again, let’s just translate – the government that Obama instituted and which the President is attempting to undo, desired to control all of us by persuading us, subverting us and coercing us whereby resistance was/is met with a heavy hammer (just ask Roger Stone and his wife – that was essentially the same holdover folks.) By dragging-out struggles over a long timeline, Obama’s tactics sought to run the government so ragged that popular support derived from lies and manipulation (see definitions for persuasion, subversion and coercion) would ultimately be the vehicle to usher-in political capitulation also known as giving-in to his demands. The result was the disastrous 8 years of law and policy he produced.
Before we go, let’s quickly evaluate Obama’s accomplishments against Alinsky’s eight requisites for instituting a Socialist state:
Healthcare – check: Obamacare
Poverty – check: Poverty increased across the board for most
Debt – check: Debt increased across the board for most
Gun control – check: this is a never-ending battle
Welfare – check: Welfare was at historic levels
Education – check: Education was hi-jacked by the Left long ago
Religion – check: Attacks on Christianity and religious freedom concerns have risen
Class warfare – check: Simply log on to Facebook or Twitter, they have us at each others’ throats.
That’s what you call batting a thousand AND IT NEVER HAPPENS – EVER. What does that tell you?
Again, this is a veneer level dig into whether former President Obama leveraged his own doctrine toward insurgency against the United States with aims on infiltration. With confidence though, it’s reasonable to believe that the evidence demonstrates that’s exactly what Obama did and it’s is likely why Qanon posted the link and chose those particular extracts.
The days and weeks to come will be compelling; if not historic.