Well now. Although I respect that this article comes from respected sources, I have to say that I am slightly concerned that you should pay attention
to any briefing or data, which fails entirely to fairly and correctly use simple terms like "anarchy".
en.wikipedia.org...
Using terms like Anarchy (which is a legitimate political situation first, and a lousy propegandised description of a non conservative hell according
to right wingers second, although the second definition was created to steer people away from what is a completely understandable and logical
political attitude) incorrectly or unfairly, shows almost from the get go that this article is heavy on the propeganda, and very less heavy on genuine
logic.
First of all, this article almost entirely ignores the ex forces, law enforcement and intelligence element that likely exists inside of a nation. Not
everyone with the training required to enact a meaningful resistance or any militarised action against government, is currently employed by
government. Redundant cops, vetrans , men on medical discharge from the forces, are not exactly in small number at the moment, and not all are going
to be men who will take the will of government at face value and knuckle under.
These people will have the training that these armchair wargamers lack, and some will know plenty about insurgency , espionage, data mining, making
oneself invisible or hard to detect when operating computers on the net, camo techniques, weapons and tactics, and so on. This information can be
distributed , and taught to others.
The issue of a leaderless resistance is very simple and has no logical flaw. Technicaly , the French resistance had no one leader. It had several
highly connected players who had an overview of the war as a whole, but they were not leaders. They just had enough information to be listened to ,
and that is no where near the same thing.
In cell based resistance a leader is simply not required. In fact, when fighting an enormous entity such as a government , leadership and a single
source of direction is a weakness, not a strength.
The anarchist option for instance, requires no leader, just shared intent. True anarchism has nothing to do with senseless acts of violence, theft,
and outright banditry. If you actualy go and find out what genuine anarchism means, you will understand that a leaderless society is not only possible
but preferable to a capitalist dictatorship, or a socialist one by far.
