Forward Observer: 2021 – The Future of Low Intensity Conflict

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer discusses 2021 – The Future of Low Intensity Conflict

Welcome to 2021. New Year’s celebrations seemed to have been a mix of relief that 2020 was over and optimism for how much better 2021 can be.

There may be the expectation that presumably without President Trump in office for the next four years, our low intensity conflict is over. That perspective is misguided.

This conflict is likely to be waged well into this decade and possibly longer. There also exists the possibility of periods of higher intensity. With this in mind, let’s look at what’s ahead.

In my last Dispatch, I briefly outlined three initial conclusions about the future of Low Intensity Conflict this decade. You can read that missive here, but I’ll summarize the three points below.

1. Advances in technology will wipe out between 10-50% of jobs, depending on who you ask, over the next 20 years. These technologies will rapidly scale, and job losses are expected to accrue faster than new jobs can be created. We risk widespread and persistent joblessness. As a result, Capitalism versus Socialism will continue to define class conflict.

2. The Culture War will expand as biotechnology, neurotechnology, human-machine systems, augmented reality, and other advancements assault traditional moral beliefs and pose new ethical questions. As we saw with abortion clinic bombings and the murders of abortionists in the 1990s, we may see similar attacks against the people and companies developing these unconscionable technologies.

3. Far Left and Far Right groups have expressed a desire to engage in cyber warfare against the government. Radical and extremist groups have publicly advanced cyber capabilities as a strategic imperative for their revolutionary aims. In addition to nation-states and criminals, domestic activists and revolutionaries could carry out disruptive cyber attacks as a part of the low intensity conflict. The targets of these attacks are unlikely to be limited to the federal government, and will likely include commercial entities and critical infrastructure. (Imagine a physical protest supported by a simultaneous cyber attack against security systems of the target facility.)

I’ll eventually compile a cumulative list of why and how low intensity conflict will rage this decade, but for now I’ll add just one more.

Last month, the Department of the Army released a strategy that warned about how foreign adversaries would target Army installations, especially in the continental United States. We reported it in 16 December’s Early Warning brief.

Pointing out that the “homeland is no longer a sanctuary,” the report warned that foreign adversaries will target Army facilities and critical infrastructure, along with soft targets like the family members of military personnel, using conventional and unconventional means, including cyber attacks, protests, and criminal activity.

I noted that this sounds a lot like the Army is preparing for domestic hybrid warfare, or a scenario where the homeland becomes contested space due to foreign “conventional or unconventional means.”

It’s in this context that I add:

4. Foreign adversaries like China and Russia have developed sophisticated information operations and hybrid warfare strategies that foment unrest and complicate domestic security efforts. Foreign powers may already be providing, or could provide, direct or indirect support to criminal groups, protest organizations, and radical, extremist, and revolutionary movements. Hybrid warfare tactics commonly seen in other parts of the world are unlikely to cross the threshold of conventional war, but would exploit existing political, social, and economic vulnerabilities in the United States. According to the Army, this is a baseline scenario.

I’ll end this Dispatch with two final points.

1. This is the type of information we cover in the Early Warning brief. I invite you to try us out free for seven days. If you don’t find value in the report, you can cancel at any time within seven days at no cost. Sign up here.

2. Starting this month, I’ll be resuming my intelligence and security training courses. Now more than ever, it’s important to learn the skills and concepts required to navigate this future instability. I’ll be hosting Tactical Intelligence Courses in 10 states this year. You can sign up to receive additional information about these courses at I’ll be publishing my training schedule very soon.


Until next time, be well.

Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

Forward Observer: Low Intensity Conflict & the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer talks about Low Intensity Conflict & the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Klaus Schwab is the founder and executive director of the World Economic Forum.

Schwab made headlines over the summer when he started talking about the “Great Reset,” which he says will rewrite the framework of the economy, society, geopolitics, the environment, and technology.

That’s going to be the focus of next month’s World Economic Forum conference, but we at Forward Observer have been getting spun up on what it means and how it’s going to affect us in the future.

Each year, I spend several hours watching the Forum’s live streams and reading transcripts and first-hand accounts of the presentations. The world’s financial elite often share their expectations of the future, which I then report on for FO subscribers. I’ll do the same this year.

Over Christmas break, I got caught up on two of Schwab’s books — The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2017) and Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2020) — in preparation for next month’s WEF.

As Schwab describes, the First Industrial Revolution happened in textiles, which led to the replacement of human labor with machines.

The Second Industrial Revolution included electricity and sanitation, which lead to longer human lifespans and a general higher quality of life.

The Third Industrial Revolution included microchips and computer processing.

And the Fourth Industrial Revolution includes artificial intelligence and machine learning.

In short, Schwab is concerned that these technological advancements will lead to further income and wealth inequality, and he wants to ensure that the technological benefits and wealth creation are distributed equally.

The underlying problem is that technology and its effects will be disruptive and lead to conflict — hence the need for elites and society to “shape” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, according to Schwab.

And this brings us to Low Intensity Conflict.

Some of us woke up on Christmas morning and checked the news to see a bombing in Nashville.

While investigators haven’t published a motive for the bombing (at the time of writing this), there’s speculation that the Nashville bomber attacked an AT&T building out of fear of 5G communication networks.

Coincidentally, Schwab writes about this kind of oppositional violence. Technological advancement in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics will not only displace millions of jobs but will also drive fear and unrest. This will manifest itself in an expansion of low intensity conflict.

My approach to understanding and analyzing Low Intensity Conflict is centered on three structural fault lines: political, social, and economic (below).

I haven’t made up my mind if technology is a fourth plane or merely an accelerator, but I am certain that technology will drive Low Intensity Conflict.


1. Technological advancements are expected to displace millions of American workers — somewhere between 10-50% of all U.S. jobs in the next 20 years, depending on who you ask — at increasingly faster rates than the last 20 years. Because of the rapid scalability of these technologies, job losses are likely to accrue more quickly than jobs created, resulting in persistent and widespread joblessness leading to heightened levels of class conflict. Capitalism versus Socialism will dominate socio-economic conflict this decade.

2. There’s also likely to be an expansion of the Culture War as biotechnologies, neurotechnologies, human-machine systems, augmented reality, and a number of other advancements assault traditional moral beliefs and pose new ethical questions. As we saw with abortion clinic bombings and the murders of abortionists in the 1990s, we may see similar attacks against the people and companies that are developing unconscionable technologies. Other than 2018’s YouTube shooting, the Nashville bombing is the only other technology-related attack that I can recall, assuming the bombing targeted AT&T’s 5G network. Technology-related terrorism may become common this decade.

3. We’ve seen elements of the Far Left and Far Right express a desire to engage in cyber warfare against the government and other targets. Radical and extremist groups have publicly advanced cyber capabilities as a strategic imperative for their revolutionary aims. The Fourth Industrial Revolution brought us the Internet of Things, and as more devices, appliances, facilities, and systems will be on the internet this decade, the surface area for cyber exploitation will increase. There’s the possibility that, in addition to nation-states and criminals, domestic activists and revolutionaries will carry out disruptive cyber attacks as a part of the low intensity conflict.

I have other concerns about how the Fourth Industrial Revolution will affect our country and our every day lives. If enough people are interested, I’ll prepare a Forward Observer Futures presentation with some of my thoughts on what’s ahead.

Until next time, be well.

Always Out Front,
Samuel Culper

Forward Observer: December Update on Low Intensity Conflict

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer has his own take on the current US political situation. Unlike NC Scout’s take which we posted yesterday, Sam Culper doesn’t see two competing Presidents come January, but he does see low intensity conflict worsening.

December Update on Low Intensity Conflict

It’s been a while since I sent out a Dispatch, so I wanted to give everyone an update on how I see things now and where we’re headed next.

First, the Most Dangerous Course of Action didn’t materialize. Although there have been numerous skirmishes between Trump supporters and Leftist groups, we saw nothing on the level of the popular revolution that was being fomented in response to a Trump win.

I have concerns over how the bean counting played out. If signature matching requirements were enforced, then we might be looking at a second term for President Trump. The fact that it didn’t happen in key states is a testament to the politicization of “free and fair” elections; a condition which will hang over the future.

There’s some talk about President Trump “crossing the Rubicon” to stay in office. I don’t think that’s going to happen, and at this point the odds don’t favor Trump being president after 20 January 2021, despite ongoing and adamant prognostications to the contrary.

So where does that leave us? Is the era of low intensity conflict over?

No. In fact, I think we’re just getting started. Here are three reasons.

1. Given what we know about Biden/Harris policies, continued political, social, and economic turmoil is likely. At a minimum, the Right will pick up where they left off under Obama. There have already been a few calls for secession. Throw in the possibility that Democrats take a Senate majority in Georgia’s special election next month, and calls for secession may again boil into movements. A resurgence of militia and Three Percent activity, some of which died down after Trump was elected, is likely to return. In short, a Biden administration will be no better than a third Obama term, and could be significantly worse, especially on gun control policies and changing ATF regulations.

2. The Biden victory emboldened the Leftist cultural revolution. With at least five new socialist members of Congress, the Far Left political insurgency will expand, and the march through commercial and social institutions will accelerate. The American identity will continue to change, as “New America” — racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse; socially progressive; and a mix of economically social-capitalist or socialist — continues to redefine the country away from predominantly European, Christian, and capitalist “Old America”. We’ll see every attempt to permanently redefine “fundamental American values” as the cultural revolution cements this new national identity. We’ve seen this kind of tectonic shift in American society three times before: the lead up to the American Revolution, the lead up to the Civil War, and during the Civil Rights Era. In two of the three instances, tectonic shifts in society led to earthquakes of armed conflict. We’re experiencing a fourth shift right now, which is likely to last through the decade.

3. Lastly, anarchist, socialist, and communist revolutionary groups proliferated under the Trump administration. The number and membership of armed Leftist groups has grown exponentially over the past four years, as have unarmed activist groups. We saw this most recently during the Shutdown D.C. effort, whose organizers were planning to stage a people’s revolution against President Trump’s second term. Meanwhile, armed Leftist groups have made significant advancements in their capabilities. Just a few years ago, we’d see pictures of Leftists armed with a shotgun or Grandpa’s bolt-action rifle. Today, we’re seeing AR-15s with appropriate optics, IFAKs, body armor, radios, and other equipment. Record purchases of firearms and ammunition is no longer being driven only by the Right. There’s also been a number of military veterans, to include former special operations soldiers, joining armed Leftist groups as instructors, mentors, and/or active participants. While the number and size of armed Leftist groups remains relatively small compared to armed Right Wing groups, the growth and level of advancement in just a few years is worth nothing. Most importantly, though, Leftist groups have been building the intelligence, communications, and logistics networks required for sustained conflict. Developing networks takes time and expertise, and Leftist groups are currently far outpacing the Right in this realm. This would become a strategic advantage if the current low intensity conflict were to heat up.

For these three reasons, I see low intensity conflict continuing well into this decade. And we haven’t gotten into my economic expectations, which will drive class conflict and likely lead to substantial changes in the financial environment and monetary policy. This is going to be a big, important decade for U.S. history.

That’s an incredibly abbreviated version of some of the trends I’m tracking. If you’re concerned about the future, and you want clear, accurate expectations of the future, then subscribe to my Early Warning service. My daily reports save you time because we report only on what matters and what’s happening in the future.

Don’t stay behind the curve any longer. Subscribe here.

Until next time, be well.

PrepperNet Live with JJS, Lady Liberty and Sam Culper, Oct. 29, 5 p.m. Pacific

Thursday, Oct. 29th, 2020 at 5 p.m. Pacific time, PrepperNet is streaming live on YouTube with guests Sam Culper of Forward Observer, John Jacob Schmidt of Radio Free Redoubt & AmRRON, and Lady Liberty of the Political Church Podcast and Radio Free Redoubt.

Forward Observer: One Week Until D-Day

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer sends this short reminder. Forward Observer provides tactical and operational intelligence on the groups driving civil unrest and domestic conflict. They just hired a new analyst to the team and are ramping up production ahead of what they are calling the “Royal Rumble”. If you’re concerned about the country’s slow descent into domestic conflict, and want the ground truth during the upcoming violence and disruption between November and January, then you can join Forward Observer. Subscribe here and get access to Forward Observer’s intelligence reporting.

I’ve followed Professor Peter Turchin for several years. He’s a scientist who studies history and uses models to forecast conflicts.

For the past 10 years, he’s been warning that 2020 would be a turbulent year in American history.

In a recent article co-authored for a think tank, Turchin writes, “The social system that we live in is extremely fragile.”

The domestic conflict has already started, he continues, “[b]ut worse likely lies ahead.” Turchin describes the conflict as “the turbulent twenties”.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise to long time readers. Our Low Intensity Conflict likely started in 2016, and maybe as far back as the 2008 financial crisis.

I started writing my intelligence report on a weekly basis in 2016 because I was very confident that domestic conditions would worsen to the point of armed conflict.

After spending three years in Iraq and Afghanistan as an intelligence NCO and contractor, I knew I had what it took to track a domestic conflict.

There’s one week before the election. I can’t say for certain that we’ll see armed political violence in the coming days, but I’m certain that politically-related killings will continue.

This low intensity conflict is not going to end in November, or December, or January.

This conflict is going to rage for years.

Here at FO, to stay on top of developing conditions, we’re adding regional forums, expanding our daily podcast, and introducing a new line of intelligence products starting in early November.

You won’t be disappointed. But if you are, you can cancel your free 7-day trial anytime you like.

Stay ahead of the curve with our reporting. Subscribe here.

Until next time, be well and stay out front.


Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

Forward Observer: How the Low Intensity Conflict is Developing

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer has How the Low Intensity Conflict is Developing.

About four years ago when I started this report, I began looking for indications of increasing capabilities among both armed and unarmed Leftist groups. Although it’s rather obvious in hindsight, I hypothesized that as operational support capabilities increased, so would the intensity and volume of their actions.

It was a slow few years, and then boom — George Floyd went viral at the end of May. And Leftist groups have likely made more progress in the past four months than they have in the past four years.

The development is actually impressive. It’s far more than what’s being developed by the Right.

Affinity groups and cellular compartmentalization have long been the preferred method of Leftist organizing, but what’s developed over the summer is far and above what was traditionally included in the doctrine.

One anarchist group in the Pacific Northwest provides the best illustration. In a recent missive, the group outlined how their personnel are organized.

In addition to 4x direct action cells, they had:

  • 1x logistics and transportation cell
  • 2x medical aid cells
  • 1x intelligence cell

This is operational support.

In order to keep direct action cells in the field, some level of support needs to be provided. The direct action cells need food, water, medical supplies, transportation, and information to continue their operations. Absent those, demonstrations become unsustainable and break down.

Historically, direct action cells have been forced into self-funding and self-supply. Over the summer, we’ve seen a concerted effort to develop support classes so that direct action cells can focus on their activities, while being supplied with food and water, medicine, real-time information, and other materials.

In the Army, this is what we called a “tooth to tail ratio”. In other words, how many support personnel are required for every trigger puller? Doctrinally, it’s something like 1:7, or seven support personnel required to field every one combat arms soldier. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was as high as 1:20 or 1:30 (!).

Our team has observed both armed and unarmed Leftist groups develop their own tooth to tail ratio, which is now greater than 1:1. This signifies a boost in operational capacity because the more active support personnel they have, the higher they can push their operational tempo. Portland’s 100 days of rioting would not have happened without the development of operational support capability.

What we’re seeing happen with Leftist activist groups in metro areas across the country is similar to what the Portland insurgency has developed. These indicators are pointing to even more disruptive protests and additional political violence in many cities between November and January.

I just thought you should be aware.

Until next time, be well and stay out front.


Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

Forward Observer: This Is a Fourth Generation War

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer writes This Is a Fourth Generation War.

Earlier this year, I did a re-read of Bill Lind’s 4th Generation Warfare Handbook (4GW) to better understand the framework of our ongoing Low Intensity Conflict.

For those who are new to the term, Low Intensity Conflict is war below the threshold of conventional war (tanks and bombers) but above routine, peaceful competition. America is not at conventional war, but it’s certainty not at peace with itself. This is the gray area of Low Intensity Conflict.

As history shows, technology and human understanding of warfare evolves, so war itself evolves. Not everyone agrees with the “generational” description of warfare, but let’s look quickly at the framework.

According to the theory, Generations 1-3 of warfare focused on the development of conventional warfighting, generally understood as:

1GW: masses of troops meeting on the battlefield in somewhat orderly warfare, such as lines and columns; to

2GW: the inclusion of centralized indirect fire and war by attrition; to

3GW: the inclusion of combined arms (land, air, and sea) and maneuver doctrine.

But something interesting happened in the Fourth Generation: the nation-state lost its monopoly on violence.

War is less and less being fought among conventional militaries and nation-states, and it’s increasingly fought by tribal entities, where both armed and unarmed combatants wage war against an enemy. (Many make the case that this is the original form of warfare, or 0GW, and they’re not wrong.)

Yet, as Lind describes, “All over the world, citizens of states are transferring their primary allegiance away from the state to other entities: to tribes, ethnic groups, religions, gangs, ideologies, and ’causes.’” In 4GW, fighting for one’s “nation” increasingly means fighting for your social tribe, instead of fighting for one’s country.

We’re seeing this right now as the American identity is being redefined and the country becomes more tribal. Small groups, most often based on ideology or race, are trying to reform or replace state power, authority, and legitimacy to benefit their own self-interests. This is the battle between New America and Old America, where “American” is becoming, for many, a secondary or tertiary identity, often behind race and/or ideology.

In 4GW, the military and nation-state has clearly lost the monopoly on warfighting, as 4GW is fought primarily on the Mental (informational) and Moral planes of conflict. The Culture War being fought right now in classrooms, corporations, and media outlets is a great indicator of 4GW, as information operations and high-horse moral pleas have become warfighting techniques to win on the Mental and Moral levels of conflict. (Notice, for instance, the rhetoric re-defining “fundamental American values”.)

Lind makes the case that killing is rarely the preferred way to win a Fourth Generation War, and that winning the Mental and Moral conflict almost always dictates the outcome of the war. In a way, to win in 4GW, you don’t necessarily need to kill your opponent; you need to reshape the information environment and shift the perception of morality so that your opponent (and/or his ideology) becomes unpopular and immoral. Once unpopular and immoral by societal standards, political and social power dries up. At least in theory, that’s how you win at 4GW.

I’ve previously described how 4GW is being fought through community organizing, institution destruction, counter-institution building, economic dislocation, corporate activism, propaganda, terraforming the electorate, and several other ways.

If you’re like me, then you’re pretty far removed from the political and media power centers in D.C. and New York, where much of 4GW originates. But that’s doesn’t mean that 4GW is not being fought in your own area.

My challenge to you is to look locally for ways in which 4GW is being fought.

Are there community organizing efforts in your area to build competing social movements?

Are there subversive political groups trying to destroy local political, cultural, or religious institutions?

Are there subversive political groups trying to build institutions to counter your own political, cultural, or religious institutions?

Is there economic dislocation (targeting income or financial health) against political or cultural opponents?

Are companies or corporations engaging in the cultural and/or political fight?

Are there attempts to expand voting rights to non-citizens, or to shame those who oppose non-citizen voting?

There are a great many more ways that 4GW is being waged, and if we’re completely focused on the national level, then we’re likely to miss 4GW action in our own communities.

Until next time, be well and stay out front.

Forward Observer: Why the U.S. Dollar is at risk in 2021

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer answers Why the US Dollar Is at Risk in 2021

I’m starting to see a lot of conservative media activity regarding “the coming coup,” expected to take place between November and January.

As I warned Early Warning subscribers earlier this year, the Left — liberals and Leftists, alike — are planning sustained, mass mobilization protests in the vein of Tahrir Square or the Euromaidan.

Protests at Cairo’s Tahrir Square turned into an Egyptian revolution that toppled Mubarak in 2011. In Kyiv, Ukraine, months-long protests and violence led to the ouster of Yanukovich in 2013.

Meanwhile, mass protests in Belarus are aimed at removing Lukashenko from office right now.

This whole idea of an American Spring or Lafayette Square began back during the Impeachment process, where left wing activists hoped to organize mass mobilization protests that would eventually lead to the toppling of the Trump “regime”.

New York Times columnists Michelle Goldberg and Jamelle Bouie gave the idea widespread coverage, imploring the Left to mobilize. They tried to convince the country that turning out was an imperative to combat fascism and to demand the Senate convict President Trump. Those efforts fizzled, likely because an American Spring was better suited as a course of action saved until the election.

And here we are with just 49 days to go. The current protests, riots, and unrest could well serve as a warm-up for November.

Any illusion of unity in this country is gone. Society is increasingly tribal, most presidential polls are split within five or ten points, the economy is separated between the haves and have-nots. One thing most in the mainstream can agree on is ‘free and fair elections’ that decide the country’s political future.

If we can’t agree on free and fair elections after 2020, then societal, political, and economic conditions are likely to deteriorate, maybe rapidly.

One of the most overlooked threats to a failed or contested election is the value of the dollar.

During ramp up to the COVID crisis, international investors sought refuge in the dollar because that was the safest and highest liquidity place to store their value.

We’ve enjoyed some incredible benefits of having a society and political system that supported a relatively stable dollar. Even with massive devaluation and theft from inflation, the dollar has historically been a refuge during times of international crisis. That won’t always be the case, though.

In a previous email I sent to you, I cited a JP Morgan study that found world reserve currency status lasts between 80-100 years; meaning that the U.S. Dollar is approaching its historical expiration date somewhere between 2024-2054, if the past 400 years of monetary history holds up. A failed or contested election will likely accelerate this timeline.

I received a response to that email, from a dismissive accountant who condescendingly asked where would international investors seek refuge. The same place they always do, and even more so with the dollar under duress: GOLD. We’ve also seen a lot of diversification into cryptocurrency. Globalists have wanted a global currency for decades — this likely becomes their opportunity for the IMF to issue a stable global reserve currency. Even if there’s not a viable alternative right now, the world’s a big place — given weeks or months, international investors can find places to put money. But maybe there’s no good solution and no where to hide. The real risk in that case is that international investors are stuck because no one wants to accept the USD in these trades. What happens to the value of a currency no one wants?

So, it’s serious question time.

If international demand for the dollar does begin to erode as a result of political, social, and economic instability, are the string pullers on the Left and Right willing to risk monetary collapse over election results?

If U.S. markets crash and the dollar does start to lose value rapidly, how much longer will the Left push the unrest? How long would the Right be willing hang on?

This may be considered an outlier scenario, but it’s certainly one risk we’ll face over the next three to six months.

Forward Observer: Mao on American Patriots

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer has a couple of Out Front podcast episodes on Mao and what conservatives can learn from him. There is good information about subversion of conservative institutions, hard and soft power, community organizing and outreach, and the need to think of creating large groups rather than small groups. Below are the two podcasts on Youtube.

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. – Mao

Forward Observer: The End of the Dollar? History Says Yes.

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer talks briefly about de-dollarization.

On Monday and Tuesday evening, I had the great pleasure of speaking to grassroots political groups up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

My message was pretty simple:

1. The United States is coming up on what will probably be decades of turbulence.

2. Intelligence at the community level will help you prepare for and navigate what could be a hard landing.

Maybe the most shocking thing I told them was the JP Morgan study about the lifespan of world reserve currencies.

From the Portuguese Real in the 1400s to the British Pound of the 19th and 20th centuries, world reserve currencies only last about 100 years. Some countries enjoyed world reserve status for as few as 80 years, some up to 110 years, but they all end in that time frame.

Maybe the U.S. Dollar will become the exception. Given the current trajectory, I wouldn’t bet on it. But maybe.

Otherwise, we could be nearing the end of dollar dominance. If we start the clock at Bretton Woods in 1944, 80 years is 2024 and 110 years is 2054.

Just as it happened with other currencies, as demand for the dollar drops, so will its value.

We could already be in a transition phase for the USD, which is sure to result in declines for purchasing power and the standard of living for the United States.

And that’s going to have a huge impact on our low intensity conflict.

Long time readers of mine will know that I’m not a Chicken Little. I don’t use hyperbole. I do my best to keep an even keel…

That said, I hope you’re buckled up.

Life goes on, but it’s going to be a lot tougher.

Developing a preparedness group, a community, a tribe — call it what you want — is mandatory.

And Intelligence should play a prominent role.

Earlier this year, I recorded a video outlining three things you should be doing now to prepare for what’s to come. I hope you’ll give it a look: Actionable Intelligence

Bloomberg: Russia Ditches the Dollar

Malaysia Today: China confident ‘de-dollarization’ is fast underway amid tense times

Forward Observer: Podcast on Low Intensity Conflict/Chetnik Guerrilla Warfare

In this podcast, intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer talks about Chetnik guerrilla warfare and how he believes it may presage low intensity conflict developing in the USA.

One of the more interesting things I’ve been doing is reading histories of multi-sided conflicts.

On today’s Out Front with Samuel Culper radio show, I talk about the three-sided war between the Nazis, the Chetniks (a Serbian nationalist group), and Soviet-backed communist partisans in early 1940s Yugoslavia.

It was ugly.

The Chetniks waged guerrilla warfare on the Nazis and communists. The communists waged war against the Nazis and the Chetniks. And the Nazis attacked them back. It was a brutal time in history for the Serbs.

And my concern is that our low intensity conflict, when it does really heat up — maybe as soon as this fall — is going to lead to similar types of attacks on Americans from all walks of life.

What’s worse than a simple civil war is a protracted, multi-sided tribal conflict that doesn’t end.