Print this post Print this post

On the Coming Civil War

4,284 words

Dedicated to those of this community who, through the Rajneesh invasion and occupation of 1981-85, remained, resisted, and remembered.— Plaque beneath the post office flagpole, Antelope, Oregon

You’d think that if you were being invaded, you would know it as it was happening. But often times this is not the case. In 1981, dozens and then hundreds of members of the cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh moved into the outskirts of Antelope, Oregon, which at the time had a population of around 50 people. The native occupants thought the change bizarre, novel, and slightly concerning, but did not think of the new settlement emerging on the edge of their town as an invasion. The word, the idea, never crossed their mind. But it was an invasion. After the fact, it would be absurd to deny that the strange and sudden arrival of the Rajneeshis was an invasion. Yet only with hindsight were people able to recognize the event for what it was.

What about warfare?

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31% of Americans believe that we are likely to see a Civil War within the next five years, while 59% are concerned that Trump’s opponents will resort to violence (33% “very concerned”). And even some Congressmen are thinking along similar lines: “America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Ft. Sumter.” And of course, yours truly concluded In Defense of Hatred with a similar prediction:

And if not, the greater the glory for those of us who saw the war coming in time to prepare.
— In Defense of Hatred, February 5, 2017

But what do people mean by “war?” Will we recognize it if, or when, it happens? Is it really as likely as a third of Americans believe? And if so, what might we do to prepare?

All of these are important questions, but answering them will require a better understanding of the nature of war, just as the inhabitants of Antelope needed a better understanding of the nature of invasions in order to identify what was going on around them.

The parallels between war and invasion run deeper than mere analogies however, because in many cases, the two are essentially the same. The famous Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as “the continuation of politics by other means,” which means that war can be waged without open violence on a massive scale. But a mind on par with Clausewitz — Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld — has recently argued that in many cases, immigration and warfare are functionally identical:

War is far from the only cause of migration. Other reasons, primarily economic, have always played an important role in encouraging people to leave their native lands. As the examples of the Puritans and the Huguenots show, religious motives can also be a factor. Yet even when these other reasons were the cause, war and migration have been closely linked in various and complex ways.

At some times, war and migration were essentially the same, as in the great migration of peoples during the first few centuries after Christ, the Arab expansion after 632 AD, the Magyar invasion of Europe, the Mongol invasions of China, and the movements of many African tribes from one part of the continent to another…

If we sometimes cannot recognize a migration as an invasion and as warfare, it stands to reason that there will be certain kinds of warfare which we will not recognize as such when they appear.

It is also probable that our inability to detect warfare has to do with the disconnection between the images we associate with warfare and actual warfare. Imagine being invaded by thousands of people and having one’s town completely overwhelmed, but not realizing it was an invasion because all of the depictions of “invasions” you had seen or heard described the invaders as being on horseback, and these invaders were on foot. In exactly this way, we might completely miss a war going on around us because we do not see tanks or airplanes, nor uniformed men with guns charging trenches and bunkers, nor even official declarations of war.

Many of us, for instance, missed that the attack of 9/11 was an act of war. We treated it merely as a crime, or gave it the vague label “act of terror,” leaving President Bush to be the one appearing to declare war. But the purpose of 9/11 — while multifaceted and somewhat complex — was ultimately to spread the political ideology of militant Islam globally. The attacks on that fateful September day were more to inspire awe and recognition than they were to instill terror. In fact, the attacks did not really induce terror at all; merely shock, then sadness, then militaristic fury. The Zetas and MS13 are far more effective in the terror department than any Islamic organization currently in existence.

This misunderstanding of the nature of war is understandable as most of us have not experienced war. All that most millennials (and indeed, most Gen-Xers and Boomers) have to go on are movies and novels. But as Vox Day clarifies, warfare isn’t fundamentally about killing people:

. . . what is the ultimate purpose of war? What is the usual outcome of a successful war? When we think about war, we tend to think about killing people. We tend to think about the destruction of the battlefield. But really, that’s not necessarily true. If you look at the successful wars of Nazi Germany, most of the countries that they defeated they did so without very much bloodshed. When they overran Holland, when they conquered Norway, when they conquered Belgium, even the war for France was, compared to World War I and other wars, relatively bloodless. And yet we wouldn’t dream of considering those various wars to not have been military conquests. So the actual outcome of a war is the change in the ruler. It’s a change in who governs whom.

All of this is to say that an American Civil War will most likely not look anything like its predecessor in 1860, just as that war did not look like the Napoleonic war that occurred prior to it, and which was the primary source of military theory at that time.

William S. Lind and Gregory Thiele have written about four generations of modern war, “modern war” beginning after the peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established the nation state as the only legitimate kind of participant in the domain of warfare. The fact that this state of warfare is basically all we’ve been exposed to for the last 350 years makes it easy to forget that this paradigm was not always dominant, nor even the norm. Wars were fought between cities, between families, between businesses, between religions, and between races.

Vietnam and Afghanistan marked a turning point. They showed that in the modern age, non-state actors can take on nation-states and win. Through a creative combination of traditional guerrilla warfare, migration, lawfareAlinsky tactics, and other strategies designed to achieve dominance and power over others outside of the traditional political channels, non-state groups can, and will, take on nation-states and other non-state groups in warfare of the classical, pre-Westphalian variety.

So, with that lengthy but necessary framework established, the questions remain: will there be war? What will the sides be? What will it be like? And how might we prepare for it?

Will there be war?

In order to determine whether war is likely, one has to determine whether war is desirable to at least one possible participant.

Political power is dependent upon the formation of supporting coalitions. These coalitions are composed of demographics which can be dissected and appealed to in an almost infinite variety of ways (women, Christians, men over the age of 45, people who listen to metal, etc). However, three categories of demographic identity seem to overpower all others when push comes to shove, historically speaking. Those are race, religion, and nationality.

Despite all talk of being a “post-racial society,” American political scientists live and breathe strategies and techniques for getting the “Hispanic vote” or the “white evangelical vote” or the “inner-city black vote.” Obama managed to get 95% of blacks, and it is reasonable to suspect that the Democratic Party selected him in part to appeal to this demographic bloc, regardless of the personal motives and intentions of candidate Obama himself. As the first Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Der Spiegel, “in multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

Political entities like the Republican party and the Democratic party — and the Aristocratic families they are attached to (the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc) — live and die on political power, in the way that businesses live and die on demand for their products and services. If the potential payoff outweighs the risk, then they are likely to choose less traditional, or rather, less traditionally acceptable means of acquiring and retaining that power as a strategy.

Long before the “progressive” movement had taken over the Democratic Party, immigrants and racial minorities were not particularly powerful as a demographic bloc. Yet as time went on, and the generally more populist and “working class” appeal of the Democratic party drew in more immigrants and racial minorities, non-whites as a bloc grew as both a source of political power and as a self-identifying demographic within America. The logic of oppositional parties vying for power naturally pits the constituent demographics against each other: men against women, Catholic against Protestant, Northerner against Southerner, and White against Black. This is all “politics as usual,” and while it can build tension, and even violence on occasion, it is not, by itself, a likely source of civil war in most cases, because in normal politics, there is equilibrium. A win for Republicans in one cycle is likely to herald victory for Democrats in the next, and vice versa. When the wins begin to appear permanent, however, the equilibrium is lost. The desperation of the survival instinct — the survival of the party’s political power, that is, not the individuals it constitutes — may tip the scale and make war attractive.

Since the nation’s inception, both dominant political parties (not always “Republican” and “Democrat”) were essentially appealing to Americans. There was some early religious friction, but on the whole, everyone spoke the same language, ate the same food, worshiped the same God, and came from the same race. But in the early parts of the 20th century, the Democrats in the North East realized that they could appeal to Irish Catholic immigrants, and set about more or less inventing a sense of oppression among the Irish (although abuse and bigotry against the Irish existed in the 19th century, the scale and degree commonly accepted today is exaggerated and in some cases, largely fictitious).

The Irish in particular are not especially important, except what their political prominence represented as a shift in American-left political strategy. Rather than appealing to sub-populations of Americans, the Democrats began politically investing in racial, religious, and ethnic minorities generally, especially with blacks. Much later, this would be expanded into sexual minorities (LGBTQ), religious minorities (Muslims), and immigrants (largely Latino Catholics).

At first glance, homosexuals and Muslims seem like odd bedfellows, given the Muslim predilection for throwing gay men off of buildings. But from the perspective of the political powers that be, it’s perfectly sensible as a demographic coalition against the dominant power in the nation, which is white Christians (protestants) of Northern-European descent, generally speaking. They even began crafting moral theories denying the legitimacy of demographic power . . . at least if you’re white.

Unfortunately, this strategy crossed the ordinary boundaries of what people were historically willing to consider their “in-group,” based on self-identified nations. Religion by itself is hard, and race arguably even harder, but combine the two and throw in foreign languages with a steady stream of invaders to pump up the left’s voting bloc, and you have a recipe for extreme civil instability. When the demographic blocs are genetic, rather than based upon intra-national issues, and when there are disparities in birth-rates between these groups, and then massive waves of immigration, the political equilibrium is gone, seemingly for good. In its place is a whole lot of confusion, mistrust, resentment, and in some cases, hatred. And at the center of it all lies control over the most powerful military and economy in the world.

The Left’s investment in minorities united by their opposition to whites means that more immigration will lead to a permanent victory for the Left. If the Right manages to stem the flow of immigration, or reverse it, then it will win a permanent victory over the progressive Left. The permanence of victory and the high stakes of the game mean that no strategy will be off the table, so long as it works. And history is nothing if not an ongoing demonstration of the viability of warfare.

In short, war is almost certainly in our very near future.

What will the sides be?

Given that politics was the source of the division, it might be intuitive to think that the conflict will be between liberals and conservatives. There may be some of this, and I expect virtually every reason for fighting will be cloaked in ideological language (“freedom” vs. “human rights,” etc). But ultimately, this is just more ex post facto political rationalization. The sides will be what they have been drawn up to be over the last 70 years, roughly speaking. That is, pro-whites and anti-whites.

Why race? Why not religion? Why not nationality? Though the United States is broadly more religious than Western Europe, it is still not religious enough to motivate a war in defense of Christendom. In fact, most of religiosity now seems geared more towards being nice and getting along with everyone than with traditional religious piety. Religion simply isn’t a sharp enough line in the West to dictate the sides in a coming war.

So too with nationality. America has tacitly granted the outsider’s definition of what it means to be American. This definition includes holding certain values and little else . . . except it is the values themselves that are in dispute. Thus virtually anyone can claim to be “American” when it is convenient, and oppose it in turn. Race is the only historically major identity left, and we cannot easily slough off our skin and swap it in for something different.

As descriptors, “pro-white” and “anti-white” are subtly but importantly different than “white” and “non-white.” An Asian man cannot be white, but he can be pro-white. A white woman cannot be non-white, but she can be anti-white. Needless to say, the majority of whites will decide that they are pro-themselves, and the majority of non-whites will see that there is a fair bit on offer to them if they simply join the rest of the “minority” groups against whites.

Opposition to whites has been tastefully disguised for the last 30-40 years, generally speaking, but it is gradually becoming more overt. In the beginning, it sounded very plausible: abstract articulations that objectified morality — thus separating an individual from any right to take his or her own side in a matter of politics — were applied selectively to whites. “White privilege” and other manifestations of standpoint theory were injected into academic discussions of politics. Many whites were shockingly open to the concept, as if inherited privilege were a bad thing if it did not benefit all peoples of the globe equally. But it is much more difficult for even the most trusting and gullible of whites to get behind open calls to “get rid of white people” (archive), and even the more moderate left is beginning to notice. In some circles, anti-white sentiment is so commonplace that it’s banal. The future of the Left is probably progressive, and the progressive movement is fundamentally anti-white. This is not a matter of ideology; it’s a matter of acquiring and retaining political power. The progressive left has invested itself in a large demographic set composed of groups with nothing in common except that they are not average white people. If they are not anti-white, they lose.

What will it be like?

Given what has been successful at achieving the aims of war in the last few years, we can expect a lot of propaganda, lawfare, doxxing, boycotting, and mechanisms of disruption that are as harmful as imaginatively possible without being outright illegal. Expect everyone unanimously to condemn as immoral anything illegal, like punching someone in the face, but defend acts far more harmful but not as clearly illegal, like getting someone evicted from their home.

The violence will likely come in two primary forms. First, riots. They will be billed as “demonstrations” and expressions of free speech, but will inevitably turn destructive, with vandalism (hopefully of the enemy’s property), and violence towards the enemy should they show upResults may vary.

The second, more sinister form will likely be anonymous bombings, in the manner of the IRA, Weather Underground, the Taliban, or Ted Kaczynski. Just last week, in fact, Antifa threatened to do exactly this:

This is all going to get more extreme. And it should. We are living in extreme times. The harm that is being done to all of us by the people in the American government is extreme. To imagine that Mexican immigrants should happily cook for and serve meals to people who enable a man who is determined to demonize and persecute them as subhuman criminals is far more outrageous than the idea that those enablers should not be served in restaurants. I do not believe that Trump administration officials should be able to live their lives in peace and affluence while they inflict serious harms on large portions of the American population. Not being able to go to restaurants and attend parties and be celebrated is just the minimum baseline here. These people, who are pushing America merrily down the road to fascism and white nationalism, are delusional if they do not think that the backlash is going to get much worse. Wait until the recession comes. Wait until Trump starts a war. Wait until the racism this administration is stoking begins to explode into violence more frequently. Read a fucking history book. Read a recent history book. The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970s. This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive. The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction. The day will come, sooner that you all think, when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on the time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at at a Mexican restaurant. When you aggressively fuck with people’s lives, you should not be surprised when they decide to fuck with yours.

As scary as this may sound, the reality of the violence will likely be sporadic and distant, more a subject of infinite internet-outrage than a lived-reality for ordinary people. The real fear will not be from the violence, but from the ever-present threat of having one’s business or family harassed for signaling — intentionally or otherwise — that you are on the wrong side. Any degree of asymmetry in this harassment campaign will incentivize the general public to side with the more terrifying of the two sides, meaning that despite everyone’s protestations to the contrary, the more intolerant side is likely to win in the long run. Civility is not the way to salvage things; it simply loses.

“Harassment” has a number of connotations, and may sound as benign as mean words. But as a 4th-Generation-War tactic, it is designed to get you to lose your job, to separate you from your family (who may blame you for the harassment and instability they are experiencing, rather than the people perpetrating the harassment), and to make life as unlivable as possible. The suffering this can cause is very real, and lacks even the nobility of enduring more extreme violence, which can invoke courage, and will generally garner at least some sympathy and solidarity when suffered.

In short, the coming civil war will be characterized by infrequent (but much-referenced) street skirmishes, anonymous acts of arson and bombings, and the occasional Anders Breivik-style spree shooting, but most of all, by a culture of lawfare and “legal” warfare that threatens to severely punish anyone who can be identified as a leader or even a member of the opposing group. Rather than the sometimes heated disagreement that covers mutual pursuit of a common aim, as in ordinary politics, the coming civil war will have different sides pursuing radically different aims, disguising their motives in the language of morality and commonality. The difference is subtle in appearance, but the implications are profound, and the effects will be undeniable.

How might we prepare?

The intuitive response to the prospect of war might be to move to another country, or to buy a gun and to get in shape. The latter response (at least the fitness portion) is good advice generally, and guns can be fun for recreation and hunting, but their usefulness in a 4th Generation War is going to be relatively negligible compared to previous conflicts. Moving to another country may help you and your family temporarily escape the conflict at home, but it turns you into a new invading force for someone else. Eventually, we all have to face the conflict that the politics of multiculturalism has brought to our doorsteps, and all else being equal, it’s better to have the home-court advantage.

So what can be done?

1. Become Antifragile

Making yourself financially and socially resistant to the harassment of the other side is the 4GW equivalent of building fortifications and battlements. Diversify your income as best you can, and network with people who share your political views. Try to become less dependent upon infrastructure controlled by the enemy, and familiarize yourself with the basics of how to identify and resist attacks, and ideally, how to profit from them.

2. Don’t Talk to the Media

Really, don’t talk to the enemy generally. Everything you say can and will be used against you, no matter how sincere they make themselves appear. A journalist, or even a blogger, may ask questions, seeming to have genuine curiosity about what you believe and why, only to excise one quote without context and remark upon how Hitler once said something vaguely similar. This piece gets distributed to hundreds of thousands of people, while your attempts at rebutting this character-assassination reach a few hundred. Now riled-up activists believe you are a Nazi, and they hold nothing to be more moral than fighting against fascists.

They can still attempt to do this without your comments, but it is never as persuasive or as punchy as when it is in the subject’s “own words.” Don’t give them the ammunition. You are not clever enough to outsmart them, even if you are smarter than all of them, because they can edit it or simply omit what is not convenient for their narrative.

3. Recognize the Enemy

This is arguably the hardest and the most important point, because the enemy will try to portray itself as objective and as civically-minded, rather than as revolutionary. They just want dialogue. By outward appearances alone, this will likely be a compelling facade. But it is just a facade. We know this based not upon what they say, but upon what they do. Even the most “moderate” and “reasonable” leftists, who are aligned with anti-white progressives but do not think of themselves as such, are usually all in favor of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League, two overtly anti-white organizations that have recently found themselves in hot water for getting a little too zealous in their defense of religious and ethnic minorities. They don’t want dialogue; dialogue implies a back and forth, a willingness to grant that the other side may be right about something. What they want is victory and political power. If that can be accomplished with verbal demolition disguised as “dialogue,” so much the easier. It saves the loss of perceived moral high ground often aroused through more nefarious tactics.

* * *

The first realization is that Civil War is on the horizon, and this is an important recognition that more and more Americans are waking up to. But the second, more profound realization is that Civil War is already here. Everything described above has already begun happening in many circles, and the fact that it hasn’t engulfed our lives and nation absolutely is no more proof of there not being a war than the containment of other military conflicts to certain battlefields denies them their status as “real wars.” We are living in a Cold War with proxy actors and conflicts playing out in a variety of fields, from the classroom to the courtroom, from the senate to the streets. The question is only where things will heat up, and how much.*

That this war does not conform to many people’s expectations about what war will be like makes it no less real. The unwillingness to call it a “war,” however, makes us potentially more vulnerable. Like the hapless citizens of Antelope, Oregon, it is better to be able to recognize the invasion going on around you, rather than to realize what happened only in hindsight. That kind of thinking leaves survival up to luck and the skill of your enemy, and eventually, you will lose that game.

Note

* I will consider this whole post falsified if things do not heat up more than they already are.

Source: https://caffeinephilosophy.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/on-the-coming-civil-war/

Related

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

15 Comments

  1. Peter Quint
    Posted July 10, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    The coming civil war against whites in this country began almost immediately after the last civil war. If you have read Henry Ford’s “The International Jew,” he states that in the latter halve of the nineteenth century jews began writing to their brethren in Europe, extorting them to come to America, because we did not have a fixed culture, and there was an opportunity to influence, and maybe gain control (which they did) of this nation. Of course the jew’s war against whites in our mother countries has been going on for thousands of years. I myself do not see a hot war developing between whites, and non-whites for another thirty to fifty years. I have nothing to support this supposition but a vague feeling, and my daily observances of our fellow whites. I just think it is going to take a little more time for resentment to build up in our doofus, easy-going, bovine brethren. I would love to see it start sooner, but I just don’t see it happening.

  2. nineofclubs
    Posted July 10, 2018 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    ‘Recognise your enemies’

    Excellent advice. The traditional left/right political spectrum is a poor indicator.

    https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/07/latvian-communist-party-under-fire-for-election-poster-showing-future-of-eu/

    .

  3. Winning
    Posted July 5, 2018 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    “A journalist, or even a blogger, may ask questions, seeming to have genuine curiosity about what you believe and why, only to excise one quote without context and remark upon how Hitler once said something vaguely similar.”

    I could see how talking to the media is problematic, but by all means public WNs should debate SJWs at every chance they get. SJWs suck at debating. They don’t have the intelligence or personality for it. Most importantly, they don’t have the truth. The reason they hate free speech is that it works against them and their views. So film yourself debating these agents of evil if you’re already public with your beliefs. You’ll win the public over by doing so.

  4. ster plaz
    Posted July 4, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    The next civil war will definitely be a race war. Against Whites.

    But it will not be all Whites versus all non-Whites. Many Whites will fight …. against their own racial kinsmen. Many due no doubt to the widespread brainwashing that goes on in academia, news/entertainment media that the LEFT dominates and uses to dominate the culture. And the LEFT is undeniably anti-White.

    But the next civil (race) War also will not be all Whites on the political Right (obviously the only ones remaining after the Whites on the LEFT are removed) versus all non-Whites allied with LEFTIST Whites. It will be Whites on the political Right who are racially aware and racially loyal versus non-Whites allied with LEFTIST Whites. Whites on the political Right who are not race aware and/or race loyal (for whatever reason) will sit it out, or try to sit it out. Sit on the fence, so to speak, and wait to see how the chips fall, the cards play out. Bet on it. They will quickly join whatever side that wins, or even looks like is winning.

    If the non-Whites win this next civil racial war, they will be unmerciful to Whites and even to those Whites who fought with them. Why? Because non-Whites have an implacable hatred of Whites and the civilization Whites created i.e. western civilization.

    If the political Right Whites racially aware/loyal win, the political Right Whites who sat the fence, will most likely demand that political power be shared with them, even steven. And they most likely will pretend that it is noble to be merciful to the non-Whites who wouldn’t do the same given reversed outcome. So, even Whites winning a race civil war is only the start of struggle to get an all White nation state. Many traitors among us.

    One last thought. The political LEFT existed all through this nation’s history but was not anti-White for about the first century, say up until just after the turn of the 20th century. When jews from eastern Europe (all over actually) flooded into America, they got promptly ahold of the political LEFT (with their money power) and are now the driving force of the political LEFT. Nothing happens among the political LEFT unless jews approve it. Nothing. And it is their millennia long hatred of White Aryan Gentiles that is behind the political LEFT’s hatred of Whites.

  5. No one
    Posted July 4, 2018 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Superb article. The only nitpick is that 9/11 was an act of war by Israel, with the intention of bringing America into conflict with Israel’s enemies, and to make militant Islam seem like much more of a threat than it is. As you say, war is about changing the ruler, and 911 was about asserting Israeli rule over American foreign policy.

  6. Posted July 3, 2018 at 3:10 am | Permalink

    I think these predictions – or rather existing realities – are very realistic for as long as the American economic and social fabric remains relatively intact – i.e., as long as the majority of people continue to be able to live their lives normally and the providing of social services, utilities, food, and entertainment continues unimpeded. (If that changes, all bets are off.) But some perfect illustrations of the new type of warfare the author describes but doesn’t mention are very recent, such as the deplatforming we saw in the wake of Charlottesville, which was a clear case of the establishment and the Left doing what the author names as falling just short of being clearly illegal, just like the recent debate over the public harassment of Trump administration officials, which is a case of antifa tactics being shifted from the radical to the establishment Right. (If Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson were to be publicly harassed in such a fashion I doubt you would see a debate at all.) So long as law and order remain in place, and most people remain comfortable, this is likely to be the only form of violence we will see – and yet we know how effective it can be. Unfortunately, so long as the True Right lacks the same degree of economic and cultural control that the Left possesses, we will never be able to respond in kind, and we are reduced to merely trying to survive their attacks. But I see little chance that this will change in the foreseeable future.

  7. R_Moreland
    Posted July 3, 2018 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    There’s a term used in the conduct of 21st century warfare: “Full Spectrum Operations.” It means employing all instruments to gain the victory: military, informational, cybernetic, paramilitary, economic, lawfare, NGOs, and now demographic. Putin exploited the Full Spectrum in his 2014 takeover of Crimea.

    If it came to a standup civil war, Right versus Left, each side would have advantages. The Left has a massive apparatus of networked organizations to provide media, legal and monetary support for its militant fronts.

    One other advantage the Left has is the backing of elite groups, from the mayor of Portland up to international financiers like George Soros. Hillary Clinton put BLM on the stage of the 2016 DNC. The elites provide the Left with funding, media access and legitimacy, while the militants provide the elites with muscle in the streets. More recently, the IT barons promote the de-platforming of the enemies of the Left in return for policies which undermine the American middle class.

    The Right has one asymmetrical advantage, and that is with lots of people with firearms and the skills to use them. More critically, there is the habit of resistance which appears to be encouraged by the possession of weaponry.

    The dilemma for the Right is that it lacks a wider apparatus or infrastructure. The result is that Rightist responses to Leftist provocations tend to be fragmented and sometimes counterproductive, per Charlottesville. Even tactical Rightist victories such as the Battle of Berkeley are not exploited because of a lack of organization to mobilize a wider movement.

    While, say, the (quasi-Rightist) gun lobby can talk about an armed citizenry being the best safeguard of freedom, the millions of American gunowners are not taking it to the streets or campuses even with blatant Leftist-elite attacks on the First and Second Amendments. Instead, mainstream conservatism channels Rightist activism into trudging off to the polls every couple years to vote for candidates who uphold the status quo in the wider culture war.

    Now, I think a lot of Americans realize that they will not vote their way out of this mess, since they did not vote their way into it. Nobody asked them if they wanted mass third world migrations into their front yards, nor affirmative action in perpetuity, nor for Leftist mobs to assault them when they attend a political rally. In the wake of the recent wave of Leftist harassment of Trump officials and ICE officers, I see more conservatives talking like they are willing to fight. And clumsy liberal attempts at gun control have alienated even more people.

    The dilemma is in how to mobilize these people into an effective political force.

    It just may be possible to network with various conservative groups who have become alienated from the mainstream and are willing to get radicalized. The NRA appears to be producing more militant videos these days, and who knows where their new president, Oliver North, can take things. There are also groups like Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer getting into direct confrontations with the Left in the public square and coming out ahead. People are going to be more inspired by this sort of “propaganda of the deed” than by any number of Beltway conservative think tank white papers.

    Possibly nationalists could provide the online cadre to network various Rightist and conservative groups into a wider front. And it may be possible to get elite backing from dissident factions within the corporate and IT spheres, or from maverick politicians involved in their own power plays. With that backing would come the media, lawyers, funding and (especially) legitimacy which is sorely needed on the Right.

    Anyway, this article is a good starting point for a wider discussion of tactics. Let’s see more of this sort of thing.

  8. Norman
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Sound advice: Don’t Talk To The Media; Recognize The Enemy, etc.

    Tactically speaking, that is. And tentatively.

    Strategically, it seems there will come a time when we should have as many people “come out” as White Nationalists as possible. I imagine the 1968 Tet Offensive as a sort of analog, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a show of force. Then again, maybe it would. Necessarily. Be that.

    Nothing undermines morale more effectively than to realize — with shock and horror — that one has totally misread the enemy’s capabilities, that they have not only the numbers but also an undying determination to fight. And to die. This is war.

    Think what you will about their leadership and ideology, the analogy of Tet and Vietnam is apt: they were fighting against a foreign invading force and its quislings; they were fighting for their national existence. Only nuclear extermination would have resulted in an American “victory.”

    Our first opportunities will come after the enemy has collapsed somewhat. I don’t mean to underestimate the threat or the resources that can be brought to bear against us, but presently and characteristically it is low-risk to be a conformist Leftoid. At the moment, it costs Antifa or Peter Fonda nothing to shoot their mouths off. That will certainly change, and when it does, there will be a shift.

    It is a strategic necessity in the current climate for us to operate sub rosa — and we would do well to become good at it. This is also a time for gathering ourselves and our resources, for organization alongside (but outside) this failed political state, for planning and preparing defenses, as well as for mutual encouragement and support. And that is why I continue to return to this site.

  9. Harper Dean
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Between the J. Lawrence article and this one, you’ve got the most dangerous and revolutionary articles on the internet.

    A couple of thoughts. The political players are not D vs. R.
    RINOs get a dopamine rush from losing, and are arguably part of Quigley’s “throw-the-bums-out-but-keep-the-power” elaboration. If they struggle for power, it will be on the same side as D.

    As you say, race will likely be the dividing factor, but I suspect it will be White traditional Americans vs. Mexico-USA-Canada fusionists, backed by City of London and China money.

  10. Randy
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    I miss the America where major airports had Krishna Consciousness devotees hawking Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita. Bhagwan Rajneesh-niks recognizable by their orange cotton clothing were part of that craziness. Even Iowa had a small town taken over by the TM movement. The nastiest of them all was EST with the Moonies a distant second. Things are much worse now.

  11. Hunt
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Great article. We only have to consider how our society is affected in almost every aspect of our daily lives. I am not living in the same country I knew as a child or even a young adult. The racial invasion started in the 60s, but did not come to early fruition until the early 90s. Since then, my racial consciousness has been permanently set to the “On” button when I am in public. I cannot go to the grocery store now without a slight feeling of dread and angst, knowing that each non-White person I see there will give me the terrible, sinking feeling that my country (or nation) is gone. Worse than that, I am socially constrained from even saying anything about it. The greatest weapon the enemy (or is it (((enemy?))) ) have is our silence and atomization. What to do? I agree that we are already in a civil war (the 4G kind). It is natural to side with one’s racial brothers and sisters. Our White racial consciousness is our greatest potential of strength but it needs a greater awakening. If that happens will we still be fighting a slow, drawn-out, stealth war, or will it be one like we saw in the Balkans in the 90s, or worse? Either way going to the grocery store is not going to be like it was for a long time.

  12. SMK
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it’s any longer possible for this post to be falsified. It’s inevitable that things will heat up. Things are too fixed now to change them.

  13. Lexi
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Mr. Robertson said:

    “However, three categories of demographic identity seem to overpower all others when push comes to shove, historically speaking. Those are race, religion, and nationality.”

    ***

    There is no doubt that push is coming to shove now. According to this poll, White Millenial support for Democrats has tanked, and isn’t much higher for women than men.

    http://fashthenation.com/2018/07/poll-young-white-voters-shifting-right/

    White Millenial support for Democrats stands at only 39%, with White men supporting the anti-White party at 37% (down from 48% in 2016). Although the article doesn’t say so explicitly, it would stand to reason that ~41% of White women support the Democrats. A gap of 4% is far lower than I would have expected, given that anti-Whites control the universities where they disproportionately and relentlessly shame White women for four years straight. White women are not only more likely to attend college, but also more likely to choose a course of study that will expose them to maximum anti-White agitprop. Controlling for college attendance disparities, there may not be any gap at all.

    Most puzzling is that, according to this analysis, White men in 2016 were actually more supportive of the Democrats than the White population as a whole (47%), and by logical necessity, White women. Again, this is remarkable considering the college attendance disparities noted above. Could this be explained by the fact that men are just more interested in politics generally? Or am I missing something?

    While shunning the anti-White Democrats, women do seem less willing to embrace the Republicans. Overall Millennial White support for Republicans increased only six percentage points from 33% to 39% despite a whopping 11% shift in favor of the Republicans among the men of this group, suggesting that women are not buying what Republicans are selling.

    The question is whether they reject Republicans as unsupportive of the social safety net (Paul Ryan’s GOPe), or as uncaring and “racist” (Trump’s populist GOP). It’s one thing to notice and react to increasingly overt anti-White racism on the Left; it’s another thing entirely to reject anti-racist norms in toto and get back in the game of fighting for one’s own group. It may take women longer than men to make this final psychological adjustment. In any case, the trends are unmistakable and encouraging. The Left doesn’t control White women voters to anything close to the extent we all thought just a few years ago.

  14. Jed
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    F/Thomas Chittum’s “Civil War II” checklist. (Chittum was a vet of Rhodesia, Vietnam, and Yugoslavian wars writing in the mid-90’s)
    https://identitydixie.com/2017/03/26/thomas-chittums-civil-war-ii/

    1 Ethnic/racial classification on government documents. “Every time you see a blank for your ethnic group on a form, think Civil War II.”
    2 “If illegal aliens are allowed to vote, even in local elections, it will be another unmistakable signal that American citizenship, and therefore America itself, is finished.”
    3. “The abolition of the right to bear arms.”
    4. “Watch for racially split juries.”
    5. “Watch for the military to assume police duties.”
    6. “Watch for the establishment of an elite military force outside the chain of command of the regular military to serve as an internal counterinsurgency force.”
    7. “Watch for Washington D.C. to increasingly resemble the capital of some banana republic under siege by revolutionaries and mobs. Specifically, watch for riots in Washington D.C. to grow in scope until they menace the White House and the Congress.”
    8. “Resegregation: Watch for Africans and other minorities demanding, and often getting, separate facilities for themselves, another clear sign that they’re continuing to reject co-option.”
    9. “Watch for further replacement of individual rights by group rights”
    10. “Watch for non-governmental organizations acquiring military power. As we are increasingly losing our common identity as Americans, people are increasingly turning to alternate sources of psychological fulfillment and the increasingly necessary military protection that such organizations are extending.”
    11. “Watch for real political power to continue to shift from our elected officials to the courts, and thus away from the American people.”
    12. “Watch for more instances of real political power flowing from American institutions to international bodies, thus again flowing away from American citizens.”
    13. “Watch for minorities and radical whites to continue to seize control of American institutions. Our courts, schools, universities, the media, many churches, and many unions have been completely or partially taken over, and politically incorrect dissidents expelled or intimidated into silence.”
    14. “Watch for secessionist movements and other movements seeking autonomy on American soil.”
    15. “Watch for race-based political parties”
    16. “Watch for the emergence of “no-go” areas for the police in our cities”
    17. “Watch for a so-called slave tax refund or some similar vehicle that will automatically subsidize all blacks for life.”
    18. “Watch for court orders and other schemes mandating more voting districts in which blacks are intentionally a majority.”
    19. “Watch other multi-ethnic empires for ethnic violence, a general loss of democracy, increasing poverty, waves of refugees, and their actual breakup in ethnic warfare.”
    20. “Watch for the spread of walled suburbs”
    21. “Watch for more mind control hoaxes by the establishment media.”
    22. “Watch for an increasing percentage of minorities in our military, the use of foreigners in our military, the use of UN troops on our soil, or even the establishment of an American Foreign Legion.”
    23. “Watch for more out of court settlements in cases of alleged racial discrimination.”
    24. “Watch for more restrictions on freedom of speech by the government and the establishment media. This will drive non-establishment people underground and radicalize them. All manner of radical underground newsletters and other media will appear, which will give the government an excuse for yet more unconstitutional means of silencing them by harassment by the FCC, and other more direct – even terminal – means, by the BATF and the FBI.”
    25. “Watch for police to increasingly abandon their traditional uniforms for ones that resemble military and secret police uniforms”
    26. “Watch for clandestine groups of white officers to form within our federal, state and local police”
    27. “Watch for an arm of the federal government charged with promoting racist affirmative action, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to acquire agents that carry guns and have the power to make arrests.”
    28. “Watch for the collapse of the US dollar as the world’s premier currency. This will be the signal that will confirm our status as a third-world nation.”
    29. “Watch for growing geographic segregation and its increasing mention in the establishment press.”
    30. “Watch for signs that the global military equation and American dominance in it are being challenged.”
    31. “Watch for the breakup of Canada.”
    32. “Watch for an increased flow of Americans immigrating to Canada.”
    33. “Watch for political and legal organizations formed along ethnic lines that will parallel, and ultimately displace their official rivals.”
    34. “Watch for more help wanted ads stating that job applicants must be bilingual.”
    35. “Watch for indications that the UN is assuming the role of a world government, and that the US is losing even more of its national sovereignty”
    36. “Watch for a certain picture. We’ve all seen this picture countless times before, a picture from Beirut, Budapest, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, Somalia – a burnt-out tank, perhaps the charred corpse of a crewman protruding through a hatch, and jubilant rebels posing atop the tank waving assault rifles and a flag. Someday we shall see this picture in our newspapers yet again, and this time taken on American soil. The tank, the dead crewman, and rebels will all be Americans, All will be American except the flag, which will be a Mexican, Aztlan, New Africa, or Confederate flag. When we see this picture, it will be too late. Civil War II will be upon us. But there’s another picture we’ll see first, again, one we’ve all seen before from some unfortunate land. But this time it will be taken right here in the US of A – a picture of a dirty, ragged child foraging for food in a garbage dump.

  15. Juri
    Posted July 2, 2018 at 4:03 am | Permalink

    Very good article. The other good one is in the Zman blog There Will Be Blood with very good comments

    It is good that Western people finally understand that they have on the brink of 1917.

    I live in Eastern Europe and in the year 1917 we got caught unawares because 100 years ago we considered our left also a snowflakes and we could not imagine for which those journalists college students and other “harmless” folk are really capable.

    Left does not want equality or any other good thing. The only thing liberals want, is you dead.

One Trackback

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance