3rd Aug 2022

War Plan White: The American Plan To Fight Its Own People

Newsweek: When civil war breaks out in the United States again, Representative Adam Kinzinger believes it won't be reminiscent of the 19th century Civil War because it'll take the form of "targeted assassinations" and not state against state.

"Targeted assassinations, violence–that's what a 21st and 20th century civil war is," Kinzinger said. "We're identifying now by our race, by our ethnic group, we're separating ourselves and we live in different realities." READ MORE: Fourth Muslim man murdered in New Mexico in 'targeted killings' (Reuters)

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has advocated for Republican states to break off from Democratic states and Civil War experts believe there are "indicators" the United States will see another conflict.

Timothy Snyder, a history professor at Yale University, told Business Insider America "doesn't look good right now." He pointed to the high degree of polarization, people believing in alternate realities and the praise of violence.

During an interview with CNN, Kinzinger cited Trump as one of the leading factors in whether America sees another civil war. If Trump and his allies convince enough people that the election was stolen from the former president, it's not a "far off thought" that a militia and counter militia clash, sparking a civil war.

"I never would say that we would ever have ended in that position, but I now believe it is a real possibility that we have to be wide-eyed as we walk into so we don't have that happen again," Kinzinger told CNN.

MEAWW: Did Donald Trump call for a civil war? How a retweet led to wild speculation

The ex-president reshared a post by Truth Social user 'MAGA King Thanos' that seemed to indicate or predict a civil war in America in response to inflation.

Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell ridiculed Trump, “Donald Trump is calling for Civil War. Of course, like Vietnam and the walk to the Insurrection, he won’t be man enough to fight it.”

READ MORE: US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book says (The Guardian)

The analysis by Barbara F Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego who sits on the Political Instability Task Force, is contained in a book due out next year and first reported by the Washington Post.

At the same time, three retired generals wrote in the Post that they were “increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military”.

READ MORE: The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it (The Guardian)

The right has recognized that the system is in collapse, and it has a plan: violence and solidarity with treasonous far-right factions.

Nobody wants what’s coming, so nobody wants to see what’s coming.

On the eve of the first civil war, the most intelligent, the most informed, the most dedicated people in the United States could not see it coming. Even when Confederate soldiers began their bombardment of Fort Sumter, nobody believed that conflict was inevitable. The north was so unprepared for the war they had no weapons.

The moment the right takes control of institutions, they will use them to overthrow democracy in its most basic forms; they are already rushing to dissolve whatever norms stand in the way of their full empowerment.

READ MORE: United Nations Issues Warning: ‘Civil War Coming To America’ (News Punch)

Anastasia Crickley, Chairperson of UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) said:

We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred.

It’s clear that the United States is being purposely divided.

ListVerse: Americans feel more threatened than most other people on the planet. The U.S. military budget now exceeds that of all other nations combined. The U.S.A. is now the only nation with two defense departments; one to defend the homeland and one to….to do what? To project “defense” of America outside of our borders into other nations? That is normally called “aggression”.

During the first half of the 20th century, the United States made plans to invade pretty well every country on Earth—including themselves. It was called War Plan White, and it was the American plan to handle “internal disorder”—or, in other words, to fight its own people.

At the time, union workers around the country were fighting for labor rights, and the US government was worried it was going to build up into a communist revolution. War Plan White was their plan to deal with what they called a “leftist-radical insurrection.”

The Military Corps of Engineers were to take over every public utility, while the Navy protected military equipment and the Army marched through the people, trying to keep them in order. Meanwhile, a secret police force was going to be set up in Pennsylvania, which would spy on troublemakers to make sure they ready to stop them.

They’d even started working out the legalities of shooting American civilians, when it would be justifiable, and how far they could go. And as time went on, they reworked it for a new era. The most recent plan that has been leaked was for the US military to fight an uprising of black people wanting civil rights.

Wikipedia: While freedom of assembly and the right to petition are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal government of the United States has had a history of using the military to violently quash rebellions and other forms of civil unrest. Examples of the federal military being used in this capacity include its role in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, Fries' Rebellion, the Dorr Rebellion, and John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. In the late 19th century, federal troops were increasingly used to quell labor disputes. Between 1885 and 1895, federal forces were mobilized 328 times; 118 of these instances involved labor disputes. Lack of instruction at the federal level in several labor disputes left states and local governments to effectively handle these issues on their own.

In the late 19th century and throughout most of the 20th century, red scares and the revolutionary success of the Bolsheviks in the former Russian Empire heightened both public and government fears of a violent communist uprising occurring within the United States.The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were aimed at containing and prosecuting American communism in the midst of the American entry into World War I. In several notable cases (especially Gitlow v. New York), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the government's right to criminalize speech advocating for a violent overthrow of the United States government.

The War Plans Division mandated that all plans be divided into two categories: Minor Emergencies and Major Emergencies. Minor Emergencies were considered "localized disturbances, in which the Federal Government may be called upon for assistance by competent state authorities," while Major Emergencies were considered "general disturbances developing from a series of minor emergencies in which interstate commerce, mails, or functions of government are interfered with" and in which "direct action" by the federal government would be required. For each corps area, a situation would considered a Minor Emergency if the troops available would be adequate enough to manage the disturbance. If the troops available would not be adequate enough to manage the situation, it could safely be considered a Major Emergency. The legality of federal forces being used at the discretion of state and local officials was a matter of concern within the higher echelons of the War Department (due to the Posse Comitatus Act). As a result, the plan was later revised to be in line with the law.

Each corps area had specific missions that they were tasked with in the event of the invocation of War Plan White. For example, the mission of the Navy in this situation would be to protect all naval stations, magazines, and utilities, and would also be to station naval vessels in all important coastal towns and cooperate with local Army commanders. Surplus sailors and marines would subsequently be placed at the disposal of the Army. Planners of War Plan White believed that control of the railroads would be essential to orchestrating a successful coup d'état, and subsequently drafted contingency plans for moving essential supplies, such as food, into major population centers if important railroad networks were seized or sabotaged by insurgents.

GlobalSecurity: Civil disorder is a term that generally refers to groups of people purposely choosing not to observe a law, regulation, or rule, usually in order to bring attention to their cause, concern, or agenda. Civil disorders are any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.

Civil disorders can take the form of small gatherings or large groups blocking or impeding access to a building, or disrupting normal activities by generating noise and intimidating people. They can range from a peaceful sit-in to a full-scale riot in which a mob burns or otherwise destroys property and terrorizes individuals. Even in its more passive forms, a group that blocks roadways, sidewalks, or buildings interferes with public order.

Throughout this country's history, incidents that disrupted the public peace have figured prominently. The Constitutional guarantees allow for ample expression of protest and dissent, and in many cases collide with the Preamble's requirementof the government "to ensure domestic tranquility."

When Sir William Blackstone wrote his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England in the mid-18th century, he defined freedom of speech as the lack of prior restraint. By that he meant that the government could not stop someone from saying or publishing what he believed, but once a person had uttered those remarks, he could be punished if the type of speech was forbidden. The English, like the ancient Greeks, had established legal restrictions on three types of speech - sedition (criticism of the government), defamation (criticism of individuals), and blasphemy (criticism of religion) - each of which they called "libels." Of these three, the one that is most important in terms of political liberty is seditious libel, because ruling elites in Blackstone's era believed that any criticism of government or of its officials, even if true, subverted public order by undermining confidence in the government.

In America, the colonists established truth as a defense to the charge of seditious libel. One could still be charged if one criticized the government or its officials, but now a defendant could present evidence of the truth of the statements, and it would be up to a jury to determine their validity.

The early American republic maintained careful neutrality between warring France and Britain. Federalists, suspicious of the Republicans' friendship with the French, won congressional passage of the Sedition Act in 1798. The statute criminalized criticism of the American government. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the Government. At that time, the government was in the hands of the pro-British Federalists, while much of the criticism leveled at that party came from certain Republican newspapers and legislators. Federalists defended the Act as necessary to the defense of the United States. The law was expressly designed to suppress any and all political opposition to Federalist leadership and policies. Republican-dominated Southern legislatures bitterly attacked the constitutionality and desirability of the Sedition Act, not for the limits it placed on speech, but for the fact that it increased federal power over the states. The story of the Sedition Act casts serious doubt on the notion that the founding fathers intended the First Amendment to be a libertarian statement designed to protect every speaker and every utterance.

The Alien Act laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the President to deport aliens, and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime. The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans, the party typically favored by new citizens.

The Regular Army's role in quelling civil unrest during the first eighty-nine years of the Republic was sporadic. During this period some American citizens opposed a standing Army. This resistance was based on the intrinsic fear that the Army would be utilized by the government to tyrannize its people. A standing Army, according Robert Coakley, "could be the instrument only of a monarchy, not a democratic state." Despite the concern on the part of many Americans for one hundred years after the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, the U.S. Army did not usurp power or turn out to be putty in the hands of potentially malicious presidents to harass their opponents or suppress dissidents.

During this period federal troops quelled civil unrest during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, Fries' Rebellion in 1799, Dorr's Rebellion in 1842, at the Kansas Border in 1854, during the Mormon Troubles in 1857-58, and quelled the unrest at Harper's Ferry and captured John Brown in 1859. This long history of assisting civil authorities enforce the nation's laws included the 1863 New York City Draft riots.

In the post-Reconstruction era, the Army was heavily involved in quelling violence associated with labor disputes and enforcing court injunctions against striking union workers. The Army's intervention in the railroad strikes of 1877, the labor disputes at the Coeur d'Alene Mines in Idaho in 1892, and the Pullman strikes of 1894, created the most turbulence within the officer corps.

The predominant problem that existed during this period was clarity of instructions and policies. According to Jerry Cooper, "officers wished they could have avoided involvement in riot duty because of the lack of defined policy and law." Policy decisions that should have been made at the federal level were left vague or unanswered leading local or state authorities in charge. Invariably, their decision supported management's position and pitted soldiers against strikers.

During the eleven year period between 1885 and 1895 military forces were mobilized 328 times for riot duty; 118 involved labor conflicts.

During the twentieth century the Army's role in quelling civil disturbances was both more frequent and more diverse. The Regular Army suppressed civil unrest at the Nevada gold mines in 1907; at the Colorado coal mines in 1913 and 1914; at the Winston-Salem, North Carolina, riots in 1918; at the Washington, DC, riots in 1919; at the Omaha, Nebraska, riots in 1919; at the West Virginia mines in 1921; and thwarted the activities of Army veterans during the Bonus March in Washington, in 1932.

During the American Civil War of 1861-1865, there were a few minor regulations aimed at sedition, but not until the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 did the real debate over the meaning of the First Amendment Speech Clause begin. In the late 1940s the government prosecuted leaders of the American Communist Party for advocating the forceful overthrow of the government and conspiring to spread this doctrine. A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, which since the 1920s had seemed to take an ever more speech-protective view of the First Amendment, now apparently reversed itself. Though admitting that American communists posed little clear and present danger, the Court ruled their words represented a "bad tendency" that could prove subversive of the social order.

Under 18 USC Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Under 18 USC Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Between 1902 and 1921 there were 51 emergencies other than war for which Regular Army troops had been used. Some of these emergencies were relatively uuimportant. Others were of considerable importance. Whatever the magnitude of the need, due to the existence and training of this regular force, troops were instantly available. Neither would the hick of available troops have eliminated the emergency. From June, 1915, to June, 1917, there were received in the War Department approximately 400 requests from different States and individuals for Federal troops. 

Wikipedia: The Waco siege, also known as the Waco massacre, was the law enforcement siege of the compound that belonged to the religious sect Branch Davidians. It was carried out by the U.S. federal government, Texas state law enforcement, and the U.S. military, between February 28 and April 19, 1993. The Branch Davidians were led by David Koresh and were headquartered at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Axtell, Texas, 13 miles (21 kilometers) northeast of Waco. Suspecting the group of stockpiling illegal weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) obtained a search warrant for the compound and arrest warrants for Koresh, as well as a select few of the group's members.

The incident began when the ATF attempted to serve a search and arrest warrant on the ranch. An intense gunfight erupted, resulting in the deaths of four government agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF's entering of the property and failure to execute the search warrant, a siege lasting 51 days was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out of the ranch. Shortly thereafter, the Mount Carmel Center became engulfed in flames. The fire resulted in the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children, two pregnant women, and David Koresh.

Welcome to PPEmpire. A coordinated censorship attack is being waged against independent media by Google, YouTube, Twitter, PayPal and Facebook. After being banned by Google, now Facebook is deliberately blocking the sharing of our stories to further censor our important reporting of human freedom and medical choice. CENSORSHIP has now reached EXTREME levels across the 'net. The truth is being suffocated.

Do yourself a favor. Think for yourself. Be your own person. Question everything. Stand for principle. Champion individual liberty and self-ownership where you can. Develop a strong moral code. Be kind to others. Do no harm, unless that harm is warranted. Pretty obvious stuff...but people who hold to these things in their hearts seem to be disappearing from the earth at an accelerated rate. Stay safe, my friends. Thanks for being here.

READ MORE:

Thank you for stopping by. PLEASE scroll down to post to social media.