Jd Hall, Insight to Incite, Jan 29, 2026
The goal is not a dramatic coup, but the slow paralysis of lawful state authority by making immigration enforcement politically, morally, and operationally impossible. This is not foreign-run, nor does it require a single command center. It is domestic, distributed, and method-driven. These methods have toppled governments across the globe, and now they are being executed by Americans against their own state. If allowed to succeed in Minnesota, they will be replicated nationwide. Christians, conservatives, and the federal government alike are now facing a reality they’ve long avoided: organized resistance does not dissolve through restraint. It escalates until it is confronted. What comes next will not be clean, painless, or optional; but it will be inevitable.
I’m not a prophet, not the son of one, but I’ve been scouring the news sites and data points for several days and keeping an eye on news out of Minneapolis and putting it through the filter of Broad Spectrum Open Source Intelligence Analysis as best I can. So with the caveat that I lack omniscience, I’m going to tell you what I think is almost certainly happening. So, refer back to my “not a prophet” disclaimer.
What people are seeing in Minnesota is being miscategorized on purpose by the media, filtered through language that makes it harder for you to recognize what’s actually happening. They are being told to see disorganization where there is planning, outrage where there is restraint, and chaos where there is a very familiar kind of discipline. That confusion is not accidental, and it is not benign. It’s what they want you to think, and it’s what happens when a country loses the ability to recognize organized resistance unless it announces itself with a foreign accent or a flag we’ve been trained to fear. They’d rather you focus on what’s happening in Iran (at least, Ted Cruz does), than what’s really going on in our streets. And that’s a legitimate revolution.
What is happening in Minnesota is not merely protest. It is not organic civic unrest. It is not a spontaneous overflow of moral feeling from people deeply worried about illegal aliens. It matches, with uncomfortable precision, the indicators of what has historically been called a Color Revolution. And before anyone short-circuits at that term or think that’s only something that happens in Third World dictatorships, let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that this is being run by a foreign intelligence service. Neither am not claiming the CIA is orchestrating street actions in Minneapolis, per se (neither am I denying it). I am not insisting on a single command node pulling levers from Washington or Langley.
What I am saying is simpler, more dangerous, and harder to dismiss: The same methods that have been used overseas to paralyze states, delegitimize governments, and fracture sovereign nations are now visible at home, being executed domestically, by Americans, against their own government.
A Color Revolution is not defined by slogans or aesthetics. It is not about placards or chants or matching tshirts. It is a method. A Color Revolution is an organized campaign designed to prevent the normal functioning of state authority while maintaining the outward appearance of civil society action. It begins non-kinetically. It lives in what is called “legal gray zones” (things that are not quite illegal, like coordinating to warn people where law enforcement is headed). We engage in this gray zone all the time (at least, I do) when we flash our lights at other cars to tell them where there’s a speed trap. It’s like that, but on a grand scale and done not to prevent speeding tickets, but to keep rapists and murderers from being deported.
Color Revolutions rely on narrative pressure, selective escalation of conflict, and moral framing rather than overt force. The objective is not to seize power in a dramatic coup, but to make law enforcement (in this case, immigration enforcement) impossible without human casualties, to raise the cost of law enforcement so high that the state either retreats or lashes out clumsily and discredits itself. Either outcome advances their mission. And this is how nations are toppled all around the world.
Crucially, this kind of operation does not require foreign direction. That misconception is comforting, but wrong. Foreign backing is common in historical cases, but it is not essential. All that is required is a trained activist class, sympathetic institutions, disciplined communications, and a population conditioned to interpret enforcement as oppression. Once those conditions exist, the playbook runs itself. It becomes cultural muscle memory. It replicates. And by the way, those conditions all exist in the United States, and especially in Minnesota.
The first thing that appears in a Color Revolution is parallel infrastructure. Communication networks that sit outside formal channels, often encrypted and compartmentalized. Distributed leadership is used rather than identifiable heads, so no single arrest collapses the operation. Role specialization is used so participants are not interchangeable bodies, but functional components of a system. Legal observers, media amplifiers, rapid response teams, fundraisers, data aggregators, narrative enforcers all work in tandem. Redundancy is the point. If one node goes dark, the rest keep functioning. That is not how a genuine protest behaves. That is how a revolution behaves.
Next comes the systematic targeting of enforcement legitimacy. Police and federal agents are not initially confronted head-on. Instead, they are are surveilled. Federal vehicles are identified, their movements are tracked, agents are then followed, and none of that is technically illegal. It flies under the threshold of “criminal.” It is deliberate. Identities of law enforcement are catalogued. Actions are reframed through selective footage and commentary. Every arrest becomes a moral crisis. Every operation becomes a scandal. The goal is not to stop one action, but to make future actions politically and personally expensive.
At the same time, law enforcement restraint is exploited. Civil liberties are not respected by the movement, they are weaponized against the state. Law enforcement hesitates because it is bound by rules, because it is aware of optics, because it understands the consequences of a single mistake. Activists escalate confrontation precisely because they know that hesitation exists. That asymmetry is not a bug in the system. It is the feature of it. When law enforcement is cautious, resistance grows bolder. When enforcement retreats, resistance hardens.
When rioters are shot by law-enforcement, it is not contrary to the goals of the revolutionaries. It’s a part of it. That’s the goal. The goal is to get law enforcement to do just that. It’s a victory.
If this still sounds theoretical, it shouldn’t. Because when you lay that framework over what is happening in Minnesota, the overlap is not partial. It is comprehensive. We are not seeing crowds randomly forming and then dispersing. We are seeing pre-positioned groups and rapid mobilization of those groups to locations law enforcement will be. We are not seeing emotional volatility. We are seeing patience and discipline to only engage at an opportune time. We are not seeing confusion. We are seeing coordination. Federal agents are located, tracked, and swarmed in ways that do not happen accidentally.
This is not how authentic, bottom-up protest behaves. Authentic protest is messy. It burns hot and then dissipates. It is emotionally driven, operationally sloppy, and often self-defeating. What we are seeing instead is persistence, learning, and adaptation. It is the behavior of an organized resistance that understands time is on its side and that escalation should be calibrated, not impulsive.
The comparison to BLM is unavoidable, but it is more than that. What we are seeing now is not the birth of something new. It is the refinement of something that was allowed to mature during the BLM years. In 2020, the state chose tolerance over confrontation. Infrastructure of these revolutions was permitted to form. Networks were allowed to harden. Parallel systems emerged and grew more sophisticated in the last five years. The lesson absorbed by activists was simple and devastating. The state can be pushed back. The law can be stalled. Enforcement canbe neutralized through pressure, spectacle, and narrative dominance. And it just so happened, the revolutionary network in Minnesota learned that better than anyone.
That lesson did not vanish when the riots subsided. It became doctrine to the organizers. It was studied. It was refined. It was passed along.
What we are watching now is not mobs, but cells. Not riots, but operations. Not slogans, but logistics. The language of “protest” remains in the news because it provides plausible deniability. Nobody wants to say what this thing is. It is insurgent structure brought to life.
BROAD SPECTRUM OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
This is where the Broad Spectrum Open Source Intelligence lens actually matters. You do not need classified access to see this. You do not need insider leaks or secret briefings. You only need to compare patterns. When analysts overseas observe similar structures, they do not argue endlessly about motives. They catalog indicators. They track sequencing. They ask one basic question. What does this become if it is allowed to mature? And usually, the answer is the overthrow of a state.
Now listen to me carefully: The overthrow of a nation can’t happen because of one city in Minnesota. But if this is allowed to succeed there, it can be duplicated in every major city in the United States, and that is unsustainable. I think the conservative pundits are wrong about one thing in particular; these are not not bused-in protestors (at least, not for the most part). These are locals. And that means that similar revolutionary networks are probably on the ground everywhere. Dallas and Houston. Los Angeles and San Francisco. Seattle and Portland. Atlanta and Charlotte. Take your pick.
The most dangerous assumption being made is that this will de-escalate on its own. It will not. Movements built on this model do not dissolve because authorities show restraint. They interpret restraint as weakness. They escalate until they encounter resistance or achieve paralysis. There is no neutral endpoint where everyone goes home satisfied. Delay does not cool these systems. It strengthens them.
What makes the Minnesota situation uniquely volatile is not only the presence of organized resistance, but the existence of institutional sympathy. When local officials obstruct federal enforcement, when state leadership deploys resources selectively (which they are), when law enforcement data appears to flow outward to revolutionaries instead of remaining secure (like license plate IDs), these are not minor details. They are accelerants. They signal to the resistance that it is protected, that it has allies inside the system, and that the risk of escalation is asymmetric.
None of this requires believing in cartoon conspiracies. It requires recognizing revolutionary behavior when you’re looking at it.. You do not need to know who lit the match to know the house is on fire. And if this were unfolding in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or South America, there would be no debate about what we were looking at. Analysts would call it early-phase organized resistance. They would warn about escalation. They would urge decisive action before the infrastructure hardened further. And that’s what Trump needs to do.
NOW WHAT?
Once you recognize what this is, the next questions stop being theoretical. If this is a Color Revolution-style operation, even a domestic one, what happens when the government decides it will not retreat again? What happens when law enforcement is no longer delayed?
Those questions are coming whether we like them or not.
Once you accept that what’s unfolding is organized resistance rather than accidental unrest, the next realization comes quickly and uncomfortably. States do not negotiate with parallel authority structures forever. They either absorb them, collapse under them, or dismantle them. There is no fourth option where everyone keeps their hands clean and feelings intact. History is merciless on this point. Every government that has ever survived a challenge like this did so by deciding, at some moment, that it would no longer tolerate the slow erosion of its authority. And that’s when things get violent. Very, very violent.
That is the context in which people should be interpreting what comes next, not as cruelty, not as authoritarian impulse, but as inevitability. Immigration enforcement is not paperwork. It is not policy debate. It is the physical execution of law against people who do not wish to comply. When resistance becomes organized, enforcement becomes contested. When enforcement is contested, the state must either withdraw or assert itself. And the longer that assertion is delayed, the harsher it will become
TOUGH TIMES. TOUGH MEASURES.
This is where the hand-wringing commentary completely misses the point. People keep asking whether mass deportations can be done humanely, peacefully, without force, without confrontation, without tragedy. Of course that is the preference. It is always the preference. But preferences do not govern reality. And the answer is no. It cannot be done without those things. Do you want mass deportation? This is what it’s going to take. You cannot remove millions of people who do not want to leave while parallel networks exist to shield, warn, and mobilize around them. Sooner or later, this will become a showdown between the Feds and the state.
If mass deportations are to occur, the infrastructure that prevents enforcement must be dismantled first or simultaneously. That means neutralizing the networks that track agents, the channels that coordinate obstruction, the institutions that provide cover, and the officials who use their office to frustrate lawful operations. That is not a radical statement. It is a logistical one. No military, no police force, no state in history has succeeded at large-scale enforcement while allowing hostile infrastructure to remain intact.
Do you comprehend what success will require? It will require the arrest, detainment, or at least dissuading of the Minnesota state and local government officials taking part in this Color Revolution.
SIGNAL GATE AND NOTICING THINGS
Much of what we know about how this revolution is operating is being called “Signal Gate.” It’s called this because the means of communication to put up the resistance is the secure messaging app, Signal, was “hacked” by a baby-faced conservative influencer named Cam Higby. Higby has accessed most or all of the “signal chats’“ that are allowing the revolutionaries to operate and coordinate. And, it’s been proven that some leading the insurrection are Minnesota state elected leaders.
Clearly, Higby didn’t “hack” Signal in the conventional sense. It’s encrypted on both ends, and at the device, not in the cloud. It has been – thus far -impossible to hack, and the open-source code-ware that been used by governments and major communications without breaking. And it, for the most part, resists government demands to overturn data. So how did Higby get it? I reject the idea he was savvy enough to have every single insurgency group hand him the keys and give him entrance. Their op-sec (operational security) has been disciplined from the beginning. If I’m correct, there’s only one explanation; it was given him by someone at the top eschelons of government. I think it would be foolish at this point to believe the U.S. Federal Government doesn’t a back door to every messaging app on Earth. Every time we think one is impenetrable, we turn out to be wrong. I don’t think Signal is the exception to this rule.
I am not asserting that this information was handed down by the Trump administration. I am not claiming a secret directive or a covert operation. But I am also not willing to pretend that random chance explains everything we are seeing. There is another possibility, one that has historical precedent and fits the moment we are in far better than the alternatives. Sometimes information is not exposed because someone failed to protect it, but because someone decided the public needed to see it.
Governments have always prepared populations for difficult actions through controlled exposure. In the past, this was done through favored journalists and legacy media (like Bob Woodward, who was Navy intelligence and released CIA propaganda in the form of “journalism.” When the state knows that its law enforcement actions will provoke backlash, it first allows the public to see why enforcement is necessary. It reveals the machinery. It lets the resistance expose itself. Not to incite fear, but to collapse plausible deniability.
You cannot dismantle what the public refuses to believe exists. You cannot remove sympathetic officials if voters are convinced nothing abnormal is happening. You cannot justify decisive action while pretending the problem is merely emotional outrage.
CHRISTIANS NEED TO BRACE FOR WHAT IS NEXT
That does not mean what comes next will be easy or clean. It never is. Once resistance infrastructure is visible, it tends to accelerate, not retreat. Movements test boundaries. They probe limits. What I’m trying to say is that if my hunch is right, and Higby has been given this information in order to release it, they did so, so that Americans could see exactly how much of an insurrection this really is. Kash Patel can’t come out and say, “We’ve been accessing your favorite secure messagin app for years. So instead, that info gets released from someone who has thus far not been able to hack somuch as a vending machine.
And this is where Christians, in particular, need to stop pretending this is someone else’s moral problem.
For decades, Christians have insisted that law matters, that borders matter, that order matters. We have quoted Romans 13 when it suited us and ignored it when it became uncomfortable (or at least, Russell Moore has). We have demanded that the state restrain evil while recoiling from the means required to do so. That posture is no longer sustainable. You cannot demand law enforcement and then panic when bodies hit the street. I’m sorry, you just don’t. You cannot call for law and then faint at the sight of a sword.
Thank you very much for this. I was going to ask you on your preceding excellent article what a color revolution is but that question is answered perfectly well right here.
I don’t recall ever having met any thuggish lawless persons such as these color revolutionists are. I’m guessing they all hail from larger cities.
I’m also guessing that in large cities everyone becomes impersonal toward others, and all matters become reduced to their lowest socio-political settings – such as DEI is. They brush aside what’s personal, what’s human, and what’s moral, such as what the faith of Christian churches address. That’s an interesting point to ponder – that human personhood becomes lost in larger cities and spreads from there.
Yes, their wretched inhumanity which seeks destruction must be rejected, as forcefully as necessary. The Crusaders had to do that.
Wherever human relationships become exclusively social and political, that’s where inhuman ideologies then take hold. Some examples of that are class and race warfare and DEI. Even Mohammedanism has its glaring inhuman aspects.
Only Christianity promoted humanity and personhood under a humanizing personal God, which is why Western civilization could flourish. Without it, Western civilization sinks back into the oblivion of the Dark Ages, or worse, given a sought-after technological supremacy.