Tactics for a Successful Resistance

How should the American people react when the resistance is responsible for the fatality of one or more armed federal "immigration" agents? Trump has signaled his reaction. He wants this. How will US citizens respond? How predictable is all of this?

Jeffrey Diver

US citizen; voted in every Federal election since 19721h

In this case, assuming the deaths were confirmed, Gemini AI gives a pretty reasonable response.

[1]

Compare this to some of the human responses from our fellow Quorans.

… and to the inhumanity demonstrated by ICE/CBP/MAGA/Trump/Miller & Co.

[This link contains ADULT CONTENT of the most recent murder by ICE/CBP “immigration” thugs.]

Thanks to CBP, we have lost a 37-year-old male ICU nurse. The immediate reaction of the cowardly thugs was to back away, as if to say, “I didn’t do this.” None of those swarming around the victim administered first aid for several moments. Only bystanders reacted with horror. Steve Vladeck explains why it is so difficult to hold these thugs accountable.

[2]

ANALYSIS: Civil Reaction to Federal Agent Fatalities & The Extremist Vacuum

Part 1: How American People Should vs. Will React

In a highly polarized political environment, a violent event involving the fatality of federal agents is considered a "flashpoint event." The dynamics are highly predictable, but the "ideal" reaction differs significantly from the "likely" reaction.

1. How American People Should React (The Strategic Response)
From the perspective of preserving democratic institutions, the most effective response is de-escalation and adherence to the rule of law.

Rejecting the "Trap" of Violence: Violent resistance against state agents is counter-productive. It alienates the moderate public and provides the state with the moral and legal justification to use overwhelming force.
Demanding Accountability, Not Revenge: The resilient response is to demand transparency and legal accountability for all violence. Celebrating the death of an agent erodes the moral high ground.
Focus on Non-Violent Civil Action: Successful movements rely on strikes, boycotts, and legal challenges. These strain authoritarian resources without offering a "self-defense" justification.

2. How US Citizens Will Likely Respond (The Sociological Reality)

The Polarized Split:
Group A (Supportive of Administration): Will view the event as "domestic terrorism." They will likely support expanded police powers and martial law measures.
Group B (Supportive of Resistance): May rationalize the violence as "self-defense."
The "Exhausted Majority": The largest group often reacts with fear and withdrawal. They retreat from political life to protect their families, creating a vacuum that extremists fill.

3. The "Political Utility" of the Event (The Reichstag Fire Dynamic)
If leadership "wants this," it serves two purposes:

Justification for Crackdowns: Fatalities provide the pretext to bypass legal constraints and reframe political conflict as a security crisis.
Shifting the Narrative: The focus shifts from "unjust policy" to "law and order under attack," often creating a "rally 'round the flag" effect.

4. Predictability: The Cycle of Violence
This is a predictable "Security Dilemma":

Dehumanization: Both sides dehumanize the other.
Flashpoint: An enforcement action results in a death.
Reciprocal Radicalization: The state responds with force; resistance responds with desperation.

Consolidation of Power: The state uses the violence to justify suspending rights.

Part 2: How Extremists "Fill the Vacuum"

When the "Exhausted Majority" retreats, extremists actively coloize the political space. This is known as "Hollowing Out the Center."

1. Domination of the Information Space (The Megaphone Effect)

Algorithm Hijacking: Extremists thrive on high-arousal emotions (outrage, fear), which algorithms amplify.
Silencing through Swarming: Organized groups brigade moderate voices, raising the personal cost of speaking out.
Rewriting Reality: Without a moderate counter-narrative, a tragic death is branded instantly as "martyrdom" or "justice."

2. The Physical Takeover: Street Politics

The "Safety" Filter: Ordinary citizens stop attending protests due to fear of violence.
Militant Posturing:
Right: Militia groups claiming to "back the blue" or protect property.
Left: "Direct action" cadres viewing peaceful protest as obsolete.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Militant crowds invite militarized police responses, confirming the narrative that "we are at war."

3. Political "Purging" (Institutional Capture)

Primary Challenges: Moderate politicians are attacked as "traitors" and replaced by candidates promising "total victory."
Local Takeovers: Extremists flood low-level positions (school boards, precinct captains) to reshape the rules.
Loyalty Tests: Nuance is treated as treason.

4. Competitive Radicalization ("Outbidding")

Raising the Stakes: Leaders compete to be the most "pure" or extreme. If one calls for a march, the rival calls for a blockade.
Justifying Violence: Extremists compete to offer the most robust defense of violence, dragging the window of acceptable discourse.

5. Offering False Security
Extremists present themselves as the only protection against chaos, driving fearful moderates toward authoritarianism for safety.

Part 3: Historical Examples of Reclaiming the Vacuum

The "Exhausted Majority" can become the "Decisive Majority" by changing the terms of the conflict.

1. The Strategy of Disciplined Contrast (Civil Rights Movement, 1960s)

The Context: Facing violent extremists (KKK) and state violence (Bull Connor).
The Reclamation: Aggressive Non-Violence. By maintaining discipline and refusing to strike back, they created a stark visual contrast. The "moderate middle" could not look away from peaceful marchers being attacked, forcing them to become allies.

2. The "Decency Check" (The End of McCarthyism, 1954)

The Context: Senator McCarthy filled the vacuum with fear of "communist infiltration."
The Reclamation: Institutional Courage. Army lawyer Joseph Welch broke the spell by asking, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" This reminded the public of shared values that superseded fear.

3. Isolation and Delegitimization (1920s KKK)

The Context: The KKK was a mainstream political force with 4 million members.
The Reclamation: Exposure and Ridicule. Journalists exposed leadership as grifters; pop culture (Superman radio show) turned their "mystique" into a joke. Soft supporters quit out of embarrassment.

4. Refusing the "Bait" (Late 1960s/70s Left)

The Context: A violent fringe (Weather Underground) wanted to incite violent revolution.
The Reclamation: Strategic Isolation. The broader anti-war movement refused to follow them into terrorism, continuing peaceful mass organizing. The violent faction was left isolated and easily neutralized.

Part 4: The Spectrum of Allies in a Digital Context

The Spectrum of Allies framework posits that you do not need to convert your active opponents. You only need to shift the "passive" and "neutral" groups one step toward you.

The Spectrum:

Active Allies: Leading the charge.
Passive Allies: Agree but aren't active.
Neutrals: Uninformed, undecided, or "exhausted."
Passive Opponents: Disagree but aren't active.
Active Opponents: Leading the opposition (Extremists).

How it Works in a Digital/Modern Context
1. The Goal: Shift, Don't Win
In the digital age, we often try to "dunk" on the Active Opponents (Extremists) to feel good. This is a strategic error.

Mistake: Arguing with a die-hard extremist in the comments section. This amplifies their message (algorithm engagement) and makes Neutrals see you as equally toxic.
Strategy: Ignore the Active Opponent. Speak directly to the Neutrals and Passive Allies watching the exchange. Show them that you are the sane, stable alternative to the chaos.

2. "The Normie Firewall" (Reaching the Neutrals)
Most Neutrals ("normies") have filtered out political news because it is toxic. They are on "Political TikTok" or "News Twitter"; they are on Instagram, Gaming Discord, or Hobby YouTube.

Digital Reclamation: When non-political influencers (gamers, beauty bloggers, sports commentators) speak up for de-escalation or rule of law, they breach the firewall.
Why it works: These voices are trusted because they aren't "part of the system." If a popular gaming streamer says, "Hey, killing federal agents is wrong, and so is a police state. Let's chill," it reaches the Neutrals in a way a politician never could.

3. Breaking the "Doom Loop" (Mobilizing Passive Allies)
Passive Allies often stay silent online because they fear the "Swarm" (being attacked by extremists).

The "Safety in Numbers" Signal: Digital reclamation requires coordinated visibility. If one person posts "I support peace," they get swarmed. If 10,000 people post it simultaneously using a specific hashtag or symbol, the extremist swarm is overwhelmed.
Verification of Reality: Livestreams and raw video are crucial. Extremists rely on "Rewriting Reality" (e.g., claiming a peaceful crowd was violent). High-quality, unedited video from multiple angles allows Passive Allies to see the truth and breaks the extremist narrative.

Summary
In the digital age, the Extremist wins by engaging you in a "flame war" that drives everyone else away. The Moderate wins by refusing the flame war, bypassing the extremist, and using the tools of culture to make stability, decency, and democracy look more attractive than the chaos of revolution.

I make no claim to being a neutral or moderate in the current US battle between MAGA and the rest of us. I come down firmly on the side of the Union—the rest of us.

This is, however, a good explanation of the tactics being used in our Civil War as it continues.

[3]