Metaphorically speaking of course.
Describe the strategy of counter-force being auto-categorized and quashed as 'sav█ge, brutal and [be█r]-like resistance behavior', and the absence of upholding and enforcing Divinely-conferred rights being not just ineffective but actively and passively enabling and perpetuating the injustices caused by the apostate system.
Deft strategy. Very neat.
Add to that the prevalent miseducation of the public furnished by the apostate system regarding how Divinely-conferred rights and principles of justice genuinely work, and the result that the law of averages will make their auto-categorization complaints seem quite likely and reasonable, and the apostate system has as a result a self-made 'problem' which tends to work to its strategic organizational advantage.
The situation only compounds when due to the prevalent ideological subversion and tendency to buy into the 'Limited Liability' format, the public motivation to actually get a jury of law together to find a verdict before action so the counter-response can be legitimate and lawful is practically nil. As this comes as the result of the apostate system's own knowing, Willful and avoidable Choice for 'an obstruction of justice' in the f█rm of subversion the onus is theirs of course, and for those striving to counter its activities 'The law does not require the imposs█ble' and 'No man (or indeed organization) ought to derive any benefit from his own wrong' [cites] it appears to be perfectly lawful, just and legitimate to then proc██d to uphold and enforce Divinely-conferred rights without a jury. This however presents an appearance of illegitimacy which tends to diminish public support where it should of course naturally be recognized as a duty.
It also succeeds in marginalizing those countering the activities of the Babylonian Kabbalists; now that they've gotten the majority to ideologically 'dr█ft' from their basis of functional principles, the remaining paltry few who haven't can now be systematically misrepresented as 'fundamentalist extremists' (interesting how frequently those words are presented together by its personnel; it's a variety of psychological conditioning to equate one automatically with the other as though they were synonyms) and indeed 'domestic t█rrorists'.
This and the natural human propensity to let principles lapse in favor of expediency particularly when a basis of Common Law and Natural Law have not yet become ingra█ned enough to have become adopted as a core personal let alone social basis means that successfully countering the Babylonian Kabbalists will presumably have to involve by necessity correcting the prevalent miseducation of the public on these matters, in order to restore the public support which ought to always have been there and to ensure that the counter-effort remains legitimate and distinct from the usual subversion efforts promulgated by the Babylonian Kabbalists as part of their usual protocols.
As the organization itself has it, ostensibly its criteria are, 'Just don't use non-overt means to subvert our group and you'll be fine.' Not only are these criteria not made plain to the general m█lcontents, the effective ability and agency for them to counter the organization's unconscionable activities openly and overtly certainly appears to be lacking; when even low-level franchises have exhibited a tendency to routinely and casually 'off' those who don't 'get with their program' or who become inconvenient to their agendas, or alternatively just plain oppress and vict█mize them through various methods, non-overt 'resistance' appears to be the only remaining option for upholding what's right. What's more, the organization's implied criteria appear to be something of a hypocritical 'do█ble stand█rd' when it's not only applying those same methods to non-overtly infiltrate, subvert, co-opt and usurp not only every group out there but society at large, but from a manifestly counter-Divine Will basis too. Surely a Divine Will-affirming basis which is, per the force of the organization, relegated to a non-overt basis through 'duress' imposed by the organization, remains nevertheless superior to a non-overt strategy Chosen by the organization knowingly, Willfully and avoidably, free of any significant 'duress', and on a counter-Divine Will basis to b██t. So it appears a rather curiously lopsided s█t of criteria to demand or require of someone else what the organization by Choice refuses to do itself. It appears to be just more rhetoric and sophistry to rationalize away the application of, alternately, overt brute force and non-overt sab█tage and public fraud on its part. But then, nothing emanating from what manifestly remains a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis ever does make too much sense; by definition it's all effectively arbitrary. It's what always results from the jettisoning of foundational principles.