In the final weeks before the 2026 midterms, a reconstruction circulating from data analyst DataRepublican describes a sequenced operational plan among progressive and left-wing networks. Under the assumption those materials reflect internal discussions, the outline runs as follows: a Democratic sweep in November 2026 would position DSA-aligned groups and street networks as deliberate “foot soldiers.” Sustained clashes would be used to cross a threshold prompting invocation of the Insurrection Act sometime in 2027. That federal response would then be treated as the delegitimizing event, with coordinated efforts shifting practical legitimacy toward Democratic governors. By 2028 the presidential contest would be framed less as ordinary party competition and more as a choice about whether the existing constitutional order should continue or be substantially rewritten.
The intellectual reference point is Erica Chenoweth’s research on nonviolent civil resistance and the “3.5 percent rule,” along with the 2022 Chenoweth-Marks working paper that called for building a “united democratic alliance” capable of continued contestation and alternative institutions even under authoritarian consolidation. DSA platform language already endorses abolishing the Senate, subordinating the executive and judiciary to a unicameral Congress, and drafting a new constitution. These are not ordinary legislative goals.
Why escalate rather than simply win 2028?
A conventional Democratic presidential victory is treated as neither reliable enough nor sufficient. It would leave equal state suffrage in the Senate, the Electoral College, judicial review, and the broader federal structure intact—features that have repeatedly limited the scale of change sought by the more radical elements of the coalition. Contingency planning supplies another rationale. The Chenoweth framework was written for scenarios of partial or total loss of federal power. Existing protest infrastructure can be converted into pressure while a Republican administration remains in office. A midterm gain would give Democratic governors cover for resistance. Waiting until after 2028 risks either losing or winning under conditions that leave the constitutional obstacles in place. Forcing a federal legal response that can then be portrayed as overreach creates a different terrain in which state-level authority becomes the temporary center of legitimacy.
Not every participant needs to share the maximal end-state. Overlapping incentives allow mainstream actors to pursue ordinary electoral goals while more radical factions treat a managed crisis as the higher-leverage path. The cumulative effect advances the sequence. The earlier template is the 2020 COVID response, which expanded emergency powers, altered election administration, and shifted institutional boundaries under a public-health cover. The mechanism changes; the use of crisis to reconfigure authority does not.
The European demonstration
Events across Western Europe in mid-October 2026 supply a live illustration of the street-level tactics. In France, protests over living costs, school conditions, and public services drew hundreds of thousands. While large portions marched peacefully, black-clad, masked groups operating in black-bloc style systematically escalated. Cars were burned, shops looted, and public buildings attacked. The 143-year-old town hall in Limoges was largely destroyed by fire. Lyon’s tourist office was torched. City halls in Marseille and Lille were broken into and vandalized. Barricades burned and police were attacked. French officials attributed the violence to extreme-left groups and opportunistic criminals.
Similar patterns appeared in Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere, with cross-border circulation of tactics and narratives. Historic civic architecture and symbols of authority were deliberate targets. The operational signature—masked agitators attaching themselves to larger demonstrations, arson against public buildings, street fires, and sustained confrontation with police—matches the role assigned to “foot soldiers” in the U.S. contingency planning. European governments responded with partial curfews, mass arrests, and warnings of further escalation.
Bezmenov’s stages and the long project
These events fit the four-stage model of ideological subversion described by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. Demoralization is the long process of undermining a society’s confidence in its own institutions, history, and moral framework so that people no longer trust the foundations of their system. Destabilization follows, with the deliberate creation of economic, social, and political friction that weakens governance and produces visible disorder. Crisis is the third stage: a sharp rupture that makes ordinary politics appear inadequate and radical alternatives seem necessary. Normalization is the final stage, in which the new power arrangement consolidates.
The 2020 response functioned as one crisis under a public-health cover. The European street actions of October 2026 demonstrate the destabilization and crisis techniques in real time—targeting symbols of civic authority, forcing governments into repressive postures, and circulating narratives of systemic failure across borders. The contingency plan reconstructed for the United States after the midterms is the application of the same sequence: use midterm gains and street pressure to force a federal response, then treat that response as the crisis that justifies shifting legitimacy and rewriting the rules. The stated end is not merely a change of party but a structural transformation of the West’s constitutional order.
The actors involved do not need identical ideologies. Socialist, anarchist, and broader progressive networks operate with overlapping incentives against the same set of institutions—constitutional limits, federal structures, market arrangements, and cultural continuity. In Europe the visible result has been coordinated escalation against civic buildings and public order. In the United States the projected result is a managed crisis timed to convert electoral gains into a legitimacy rupture. Both are consistent with a long project in which leftist forces work toward the erosion and replacement of Western constitutional systems rather than their ordinary reform. That project has consistently treated biblical Christianity, its moral claims, and the institutions shaped by them as primary obstacles to be dismantled.
Why prayer and looking to Jesus Christ is critical
In a period marked by an open anti-Christ and anti-Christian offensive—visible in the targeting of heritage, the rewriting of moral foundations, and the elevation of crisis as a tool for power—prayer and looking to Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible, is not peripheral. It is the necessary counter to the demoralization stage itself. The long project succeeds when a people lose confidence that any higher authority stands above the state, the street, or the latest crisis narrative. Faith in Christ restores that higher reference: a moral order that cannot be voted away, a hope that does not depend on electoral outcomes or institutional survival, and a posture of endurance that refuses both panic and resignation. Prayer aligns individuals and communities with that reality rather than with the manufactured sense of inevitability that crisis politics requires. Without it, even sound constitutional arguments and practical resistance can be eroded by the same cultural pressure that has advanced further in parts of Europe. With it, the residual cohesion that still exists in America has a living center that political tactics alone cannot supply.
It will not be successful in America because the country was built with precisely these kinds of attempts in mind. Federalism, the separation of powers, an armed citizenry, and a still-living tradition of skepticism toward concentrated authority give the United States structural and cultural antibodies that much of Europe no longer possesses. Large parts of the country remain unwilling to demoralize on the schedule required, and the same federal system that the plan seeks to fracture also allows resisting states and communities to withhold cooperation, maintain order, and preserve alternative centers of legitimacy. Street tactics that can overwhelm centralized European states meet a different reality here: a population that has repeatedly rejected revolutionary rupture, a legal and political order that treats domestic insurrection as a threat to be contained rather than a mandate to rewrite the Constitution, and enough residual cohesion to deny the crisis the normalizing consensus it needs. That cohesion is strengthened, not replaced, when people look to Jesus Christ rather than to political saviors or the next emergency. The plan depends on America behaving like the societies that have already been through advanced demoralization. It has not—and so long as a critical portion of the country continues to pray and orient itself to the God of the Bible, the final stage of normalization remains out of reach.
Please join with your brother in praying over the prayer targets today.
Glory to God
grace and peace
