WHY the Idea of ANY kind of "march" on D.C. is dea
Mar 29, 2013 13:35:55 GMT -5
Post by Steven Peter Yevchak, Sr. on Mar 29, 2013 13:35:55 GMT -5
I'll summarize them as briefly as possible:
(1) D.C. is too far away for MOST people to be able to even make the trip given the economy/job situation. Any attempted "march" on D.C., whether armed or UN-armed would require TOTAL participation by ALL patriots in the country. If you DIDN'T get that kind of participation, the whole thing would be a dud, making it even easier for them to "marginalize" our resistance (if nothing else).
(2) Ingress and egress to/from D.C. is limited and easily-controllable. I have serious doubts about whether or not anyone would even GET to D.C. without being stopped well OUTSIDE D.C. at checkpoints and arrested right on the spot in the most dis-advantageous of surroundings - hemmed in and with no way/room to maneuver.
(3) D.C. is heavily-protected and would/will be even more so should this "march on D.C." talk progress. In an ARMED-march scenario, the absolute certainty of an "incident" if people DID manage to get there (whether accidental/purposeful or false-flag) is undebatable. If that's what you actually want , just come out and SAY SO. In an UN-armed march, even if millions show up - everyone IS CANNON-FODDER. I will NOT die for nothing.
(4) The D.C. area will be devoid of politician's on July 4th! What in the hell is the point of going there at all if none of the politician's we're trying to influence/intimidate are even there?
IMHO, our efforts at ANY kind of a "march" would be more productive at the State Capitol level - during the week - when you could get MORE participation from State residents who could GET THERE more easily/less-expensively - where it would be harder to CONTROL ALL INGRESS/EGRESS routes - where it would be harder to "control" 50 State Capitols - where it would be harder to sweep 50 simultaneous "marches" under the mainstream media's rug.
Tactically, any kind of "march on Washington D.C. is a grave mistake - strategically, it's simply useless.
Or is the whole goal of these proposed "marches" actually another "Boston Massacre", D.C.-style?
Did I miss anything? Pete
S.C. State Grp. Adm. @ modernmilitiamovement.com/
S.C. State POC @ alarmandmuster.proboards.com/index.cgi
(1) D.C. is too far away for MOST people to be able to even make the trip given the economy/job situation. Any attempted "march" on D.C., whether armed or UN-armed would require TOTAL participation by ALL patriots in the country. If you DIDN'T get that kind of participation, the whole thing would be a dud, making it even easier for them to "marginalize" our resistance (if nothing else).
(2) Ingress and egress to/from D.C. is limited and easily-controllable. I have serious doubts about whether or not anyone would even GET to D.C. without being stopped well OUTSIDE D.C. at checkpoints and arrested right on the spot in the most dis-advantageous of surroundings - hemmed in and with no way/room to maneuver.
(3) D.C. is heavily-protected and would/will be even more so should this "march on D.C." talk progress. In an ARMED-march scenario, the absolute certainty of an "incident" if people DID manage to get there (whether accidental/purposeful or false-flag) is undebatable. If that's what you actually want , just come out and SAY SO. In an UN-armed march, even if millions show up - everyone IS CANNON-FODDER. I will NOT die for nothing.
(4) The D.C. area will be devoid of politician's on July 4th! What in the hell is the point of going there at all if none of the politician's we're trying to influence/intimidate are even there?
IMHO, our efforts at ANY kind of a "march" would be more productive at the State Capitol level - during the week - when you could get MORE participation from State residents who could GET THERE more easily/less-expensively - where it would be harder to CONTROL ALL INGRESS/EGRESS routes - where it would be harder to "control" 50 State Capitols - where it would be harder to sweep 50 simultaneous "marches" under the mainstream media's rug.
Tactically, any kind of "march on Washington D.C. is a grave mistake - strategically, it's simply useless.
Or is the whole goal of these proposed "marches" actually another "Boston Massacre", D.C.-style?
Did I miss anything? Pete
S.C. State Grp. Adm. @ modernmilitiamovement.com/
S.C. State POC @ alarmandmuster.proboards.com/index.cgi