I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not advocating for violence by making this post. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.

So, lots of people here are trying to suggest that unless the plan goes through and military takes out the deep state then we are all doomed. They've bought into the absolutely BS narrative that We The People could not win in a revolution against the deep state. That's just fake news. The government has already run simulations (war games, also called red team planning) concerning the possible outcomes of a theoretical second revolutionary war and determined that it stands pretty much 0% chance of winning against We The People. There are many good reasons why this is, but there are two things we need to clear up as to frame this in your mind properly.

1: Civil war and revolutionary war are two different things.

Civil war is when two halves of a country fight each other concerning some kind of issue. This is the people vs. the people. Revolutionary war is when the people of a country fight to overthrow their government. This is the people vs. the elites.

Many people automatically interpret a second revolutionary war as being a "civil war" of the political left vs. the political right. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the lines between these two can be blurred, but in our situation, we are talking about a revolutionar war of We The People vs. the deep state. I don't envision soy drinking leftists to be willing to fight and die to defend the government, but it's absolutely a possibility for conservatives to be willing to fight and die to defend our freedom from our tyrannical government. So this would likely be conservatives vs. the deep state with the typical leftist sitting back and doing nothing.

2: A revolutionary war would be 4th generational warfare, not 3rd generational warfare.

Most people when they hear "war", they automatically think about something like WW2 in which both sides are two, unified forces with uniforms / etc. For the most part, this isn't how warfare is fought anymore. Most modern warfare is 4th generational. 4th generational warfare blurs the lines between civilian and combatant, and between warfare and politics as a whole. In our case, it is a traditional military with uniforms/etc vs. rebel forces which blend in with the civilian population.

The long and short of the implications of this is that 4th generational warfare, when fought between an organized (traditional) military and rebel forces, gives significant leverage to the rebel forces. The Vietnam War and the various wars in the middle east are good examples of this. Essentially, a bunch of rice farmers and goat herders took on the most powerful military of all time and actually put up a good fight due to the tactics of 4th generational warfare.

Also, if 4th generational warfare is fought in the context of a revolution then the rebel forces gain even more leverage. A lot of what the US got away with in Vietnam and in the middle east simply wouldn't fly in the context of a revolution when mistakes that happen occur to your own people. So, things like drone strikes to wipe out part of a building because the military thinks there might be rebels inside become completely out of the question; that's one of your citizen's buildings you'd be bombing and any innocents who die are your own citizens whose friends and families very well might joint he rebel forces. See how this works?

Just as one example to paint the concept of 4th generational warfare in your mind, imagine that you're a soldier in the US military fighting against a second revolution. You're driving in a convey through a town and you then start to take fire from an unknown position. What do you do? Stop to try and determine who opened fire on you? Whoever it was hid their rifles, are dressed like everyone else, and cannot be distinguished from people who had nothing to do with the attack. Do you wipe out people you suspect were involved or the entire town? You would then have created a massive PR blunder which would give the rebel cause thousands if not millions of new supporters. Do you do nothing and continue on? Every time anyone from the military goes in that town they will be under fire as they know they can get away with it. These no-win situations would be quite common for the government.

So, now that we have the proper frame of mind (4th generational revolutionary warfare), let's go on to a list of reasons why the government wouldn't stand any chance of winning such a war.

1: Military members going AWOL and committing sabotage.

Under the event of the US government deciding to order the military to fight a war against American rebel forces, a significant portion of military members would go AWOL. Many of those who stay would do so with the intent to sabotage from within. Critical information would constantly be leaked to rebel forces, necessary logistics to fight a war would be sabotaged from within, and many of the AWOL members would start to show up as rebels themselves. All of this is to say that the military would be fighting at a very small fraction of its normal capabilities. There is also the real possibility that a significant enough portion of military members go AWOL that the military couldn't actually do any real fighting to begin with.

Example 1: The deep state is woken up in the middle of the night to the news that 20 F-35 jets were destroyed. Unknown military members either let rebel forces in to plant explosives or planed the explosives themselves.

Example 2: A perfectly functioning tank which sustained legitimate damage took 10 times as long to fix as would be normal because the soldiers repairing it secretly support the rebels.

Example 3: Thousands of military members start to go hungry because of a mysterious fire that burned down the building which contained their MREs and other valuable equipment.

The military would be fighting with both arms and both legs tied behind its back.

2: Revolutions are fought and won all the time, and the American people are the civilian population in the best possible position to win a revolution.

The elephant in the room when it comes to this point is firearms ownership. The exact amount of firearms the civilian population of the United States owns is unknown, but it's estimated to be somewhere around 400,000,000 (and the various methods used to create this estimate typically have flaws which would actually under state the true number of firearms owned). For reference, the US military all together has about 4.4 million firearms. There would be absolutely no shortage of firearms for the rebel forces. Every single county in the entire country would be chalk full of firearms the rebels could use, so absolutely nowhere in the country would be a save haven for the military. Anywhere the military goes would be dangerous.

There's also the fact that the American civilian population includes many, many combat veterans. There is no shortage of American civilians who already know how to fight, and who could teach their fellow civilians how to properly fight if a revolution started. That's to say all of the experience the military has gathered over the past few decades would belong as much to the rebels as it would the military itself.

3: This is an absolutely massive point; I'm making this bold so you at least read this point if any. Jets, drones, etc would be nearly meaningless.

I eluded to this point earlier, but the same things which the US military can get away with when fighting poor people from foreign country simply WOULD NOT FLY here in the US. Every single innocent non-combatant killed in a drone strike or by a jet's missile would be a PR nightmare for the government. Censorship of these kinds of things simply does not work anymore; the fact that well over 100,000,000 Americans know that the election was rigged is proof that censorship doesn't work. These innocents being killed by the government would be played up by the rebels (and specifically by memetic soldiers such as ourselves) to rightfully demonize the government.

There's also the fact that jets, drones, and even tanks can't patrol city streets. If the government says "You must wear a mask because of the flu." then a jet isn't going to enforce that order. A drone can't close Randy's restaurant without a PR disaster. Using a tank to blow up a Salon would create more rebels than it would take out. There is absolutely no substitute for boots on the ground. If the government wants to mandate something during a time of war, then they would have to have boots on the ground in every city in the nation. The citizens willingness to follow laws and orders of the government goes down dramatically during a revolution; these boots on the ground enforcing bullshit orders will either be dodging pot shots or be dead because of them.

Allow me to paint one grim example of this point. A group of soldiers in Small Town, USA is enforcing Xiden's new mandatory mask mandate / all restaurants must be close forever bill. They are walking down the side walk, pass by a group of normal looking people, and then they're dead. Those normal looking people they passed by were concealing pistols and shot the soldiers in the back of the head as soon as they had turned around. Situations like this would be common.

4: The government would be forced to fight a war on all fronts due to rioting.

We know all too well how quickly our cities can devolve into rioting thanks to the "summer of love". The type of tension which leads to, or more accurately which can be harnessed to start, rioting would be stronger were the nation at war on our own soil. The US government would have the options of either imposing draconian restrictions of freedom on city dwellers to try and prevent riots (thereby creating sympathy for the rebels contentions that the government is tyrannical) or let the cities devolve into anarchy (which lessens the legitimacy of the government as it cannot even prevent rioting). Many of these lose-lose situations would exist for the government.

5: An organized military would be significantly more dependent on infrastructure than rebel forces, and the infrastructure of the United States is constantly in a state of disrepair. This includes roads, power, and everything really.

A US general is reported to have said "The United State's infrastructure is essentially held together with duct tape and the will of the department of transportation, and often there isn't enough duct tape." Moving tanks, armored vehicles, etc in enough numbers to fight a war would be a challenge even while we are not at war, but Johnny Redneck and his pals could easily take out bridges, ruin roads, and in general cause havoc to our infrastructure. It's no skin off Johnny's back as he has a 4 wheel drive off-road truck, but Private Pete trying to advance a 60 ton tank through a swamp or the bottom of a river might run into some trouble. IEDs would be a massive problem.

Also, the continental US has a ton of geographical and man-made chokepoints, and nearly all of these chokepoints are in deep red country were support for the rebels would be strongest. I certainly wouldn't want to try and move a tank across the mountains of Tennessee if the locals had it out for me.

6: This ties into the logistics point, but food. Just food.

Most food is grown in flyover country, and flyover country is exactly where support for the rebels would be the strongest. The government would run into another lose-lose situation of either proving the rebels are right about the government being tyrannical by it seizing Farmer Fred's farm which his family has owned for over 100 years, or starvation riots in the big cities would lessen the government's legitimacy as people are starving under their rule.

7: This is another logistics point, but power would be a huge issue.

With the exception of Texas, almost every other state in the nation is part of either the east or west coast power grids, and these things are ancient. With the sabotage of a few key locations, locations which are public record, an entire power grid can be disabled and would take months to bring back online. Johnny redneck would probably have the foresight to stock up on twinkies and gasoline before he took down the power grid, but much of the technological advantage the military would depend on would be made obsolete by such a happening.

8: Nuclear weapons.

If the US government ever decided to use nuclear weapons against its own people because of a revolution then that would be the end for the government. Tens of millions of Americans who were neutral or on the government's side would switch sympathies to then support the rebels. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who were not willing to fight for the rebels prior would be on their way to DC to wipe the whole city out.

Conversely, if even one nuclear sub decided to back the rebels then the government would immediately lose the war, full stop. Simply the credible threat of a nuclear strike would immediately give the rebels near-ultimate authority over the government, but if the government were stupid enough to not surrender then DC becoming a smoking, radioactive crater would be the icing on the victory cake for the rebels. Power resides where people believe it resides, and it would be hard for people to believe the government is in charge when their main city was destroyed and anywhere else the rebels want to be a smoking ruin would become one.

9: Outside involvement

A second American revolution would inherently become a global conflict. Really, any nation that isn't part of the globalist world-domination-plot would find value in the rebel side winning a revolution.

Russia, for example, has already stated that it would back Texas were it to secede from the union. It's clear they'd want to help the rebels in a second American revolution. Russia, which mind you is the country with probably the most experience when it comes to fighting in urban environments, would likely send armaments and people to train US rebels to fight in urban settings.

As far as the idea of foreign, globalist countries trying to send troops to help the US government goes, that's, for the most part, a logistical daydream rather than something which could actually happen. The ability to move enough troops, armaments, and supplies over an ocean to mount a serious offensive is an ability which is uniquely American with our many, large, and modern aircraft carriers. These carriers could be easily sabotaged to prevent this. Moving even 100,000 soldiers from Europe or Asia to the United States would be a massive logistical challenge, and keeping a constant supply line for them would be little more than a pipe dream.

The ONLY way the deep state could win is if the plan doesn't go through AND We The People don't fight back.

The shills are now rehashing stores from early 2020, 2019, and even earlier as though it were brand new news right now. This is in an attempt to DEMORALIZE us as they're trying to get us excited only for our hopes to be crushed as we realize it's actually old news. ANYONE WHO POSTS RE-HASHED, OLD NEWS AS IF IT'S BREAKING JUST NOW IS A SHILL! Do NOT upvote their posts. Do NOT reply to their posts. Actively down vote them. Brining up old news is okay as long as you let people know the approximate date it was released, but REHASHING OLD NEWS AS IF IT WERE NEW IS SHILLING!

I'm not trying to move the goalposts, but maybe today is just the first of the 10 days of darkness Q warned us about. Maybe we get to see all of the crazy stuff Biden tries to do in his first 10 days so that everyone realizes what kind of hell we were about to go through, but then the plan finally happens. I honestly don't know what to think anymore; maybe this is just hope beyond hope.

Pretty much everyone here already knew that for a long time, but from the perspective of someone who is still asleep this is going to be a massive redpill. The fact that CNN is trying to get ahead of the story means that now both sides are reporting that the capital event being staged, even from the perspective of the average brainwashed person, must be true.

The implications of the capital building being staged are two fold, and these implications will be the bombshells that wake up many people who are still asleep. The first implication is that because the event was staged, therefore Antifa and the Democrats must be working together. The official narrative never suggested that Antifa was following the Democrat's (really deep state's) orders, but it would be very difficult to suggest otherwise in the eyes of the people who are still asleep now that the capital building event on the 6th is officially, according to even the narrative, staged. This might also lead people to realize that all of the riots which happened over the past year or so were likely staged (we know full well they were, but now people who are still asleep might realize this). The second implication is that the Democrats current attempt to impeach Trump is insurrection and treason. They staged the event and then tried to impeach Trump based on it. That's damning. People who might have not believed that the election is rigged or were on the fence might now seriously consider the evidence and realize that the election was staged. After all, if the Democrats (deep state) are willing to stage an event and try to impeach Trump based off it then clearly they'd be willing to do anything (including rigging the election).

This revelation is likely to be a bombshell; we should spread it to as many people who are still asleep as possible. This is our job.