Patriot Radio Interview with Sam Culper of Forward Observer, July 2019

In the attached file below, Patriot Radio’s Rep. Matt Shea interviews Forward Observer founder and chief analyst Sam Culper – from July 2, 2019 airing. Rep. Shea and Sam Culper discuss low-intensity conflict in the US. The interview begins at the 31:30 mark.

Around the same date Sam Culper was also interviewed by Prepping 2.0‘s Glen Tate and Shelby Gallagher on SHTF Intelligence or practical intelligence for preppers. Sam also discusses the coming civil unrest/low-intensity conflict. The interview begins at the 6:50 mark.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part V

In this video, Sam Culper of Forward Observer shares part five of his critique of the Civil War 2 video.  See Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down his thoughts and the implications of military and law enforcement involvement during a Low Intensity Conflict.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part IV

In this video, Sam Culper of Forward Observer shares part four of his critique of the Civil War 2 video.  See Part I and Part II and Part III.

 

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down his view of the future (insurgency vs civil war), guerrilla warfare, phases of revolutionary conflict, and answers the question, “Where are we now?”

Forward Observer: Breaking Down Civil War 2 – Part III

In this video, Sam Culper of Forward Observer shares part three of his critique of the Civil War 2 video.  See Part I and Part II.

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down another reason to expect Balknization of the U.S., and two ways to begin looking at strengths and weaknesses of competing sides of a conflict.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part Two

This video is a continuation of intelligence analyst Sam Culper’s earlier discussion which you can find here.

 

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down some alternative scenarios to “civil war.”

Related:

Wilder: Civil War Weather Report #2, Censorship, Stalin, and a Bunch of Links with some of his commendary on the same Civil War 2 video.

…YouTube© is the real star of censorship in June.  Comedian/journalist Steven Crowder has been a long-time YouTube® broadcaster who is generally on the mainstream “Right” side of the political world.  He likes guns.  Doesn’t like abortion.  He is not extreme in any real sense of the word.  But as a comedian, one of the things he does regularly is mock people.  Which people?  Everyone.  I won’t go into the details (you can look it up) but a group of Leftists decided Crowder should be banned from YouTube™ since he made a lispy-Leftist journalist who is an ethnic and sexual minority feel bad…In a crowning bit of irony, YouTube® censored a video where a Google™ (owner of YouTube™) executive talked about how Google© wouldn’t allow another “Trump situation.”  This was presumably via using their ability to manipulate what search results people see when they use Google™…

Forward Observer: Economic Warning – June 2019

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has a short article up discussing recent economic projections for a recession to begin in 2020 or even this year.

What follows is the Economic Warning portion of this week’s Watch Report.

In this month’s FOMC meeting, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged that there was soft economic data emerging — a potential warning sign of recession. Many investors expect a cut to interest rates next month to stave off a recession. Some economists expect two rate cuts this year, regardless of when they happen. One asset manager said he expected four rate cuts this year.

Recession and Trump’s reelection chances

This month, Jeffrey Gundlach, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase all revised their expectations of recession forward to 2020. JPMorgan’s Bruce Kasman said it might even start this year. That’s a big shift from what these firms were saying last month, so I agree that we can expect the Fed to cut interest rates in order to stave off a recession. Gundlach, who has no faith in the Fed’s predictive capability, believes that by the time the Fed has to cut rates, it will already be too late.

This, of course, will have major implications for President Trump’s reelection chances. High profile managers like Scott Minerd and Kyle Bass both believe that the recession will be average or mild, respectively. Others, like Gundlach, have warned that this recession is going to present more difficult challenges.

If this recession poses the risks that Gundlach describes (below) then Trump’s chances of reelection will be seriously threatened. If that’s the case, then it’s time to batten down the hatches for higher taxes and wealth redistribution based on what we saw during this week’s Democratic debates and what’s been proposed in the lead up.

The problem with cutting interest rates this year to stave off a recession next year is that the Fed will have less to cut once a recession does hit, which increases the likelihood that the recession is more painful than “mild.”…

Click here to read the entire summary at Forward Observer.

Forward Observer: Civil War?? The Truth About America’s Future

Sam Culper of Forward Observer has a very good video up talking about “Civil War 2.0.” It’s a response to someone else’s video which talked about who would win the fighting. Sam Culper believes it is highly unlikely that we would get to an 1860s-style conflict, but does believe that we’re in a hot peace that will get worse. He talks about many different aspects of non-violent warfare that are currently happening in the country and makes some inferences about the future.  The video is about thirty minutes long, but it is worth a watch.

 

Sam Culper also wrote a longish article specifically critiquing the “Civil War 2 in America: Who Will Win?” video. He responds to/refutes specific points made in that video.  That article is through this link. If you do think there will be a fighting civil war, this article is a good read as Sam Culper discusses the types of responses the government could take to make life miserable for whomever is on the other side.

Forward Observer: May Update on the “Second American Civil War”

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has another article update on our Second American Civil War. Forward Observer provides daily, weekly, and monthly intelligence updates to its members on matters of national concern.

For a couple years now, I’ve described “low intensity conflict” as the doctrine which best represents post-Obama America.

I believe very few things said about the current “civil war” but here’s what I know to be true of our current domestic conflict:

1. It’s “low intensity.” Low intensity conflict (LIC) is the doctrine of war below the threshold of conventional war (tanks, troops, planes) but above routine, peaceful competition. Anything over 1,000 deaths a year from political violence would be classified as a civil war. That’s certainly a much higher intensity than what we’re seeing now. LIC is characterized by political, economic, diplomatic, and information warfare, along with low-level politically- or ideologically-driven violence. See here for additional examples.

Another characteristic of low intensity conflict, as we’ve seen throughout history, is a relatively small percentage of the population engaged in violence. It may only be one percent of an entire country ‘at war’ while another 5-15 percent support the violence, and 75+ percent of citizens are just trying to live their lives.

Those who disagree sometimes reply, “Go to your grocery store. Go to the bank. No one is at war with each other. Everything is fine. You’re making too much of this.”

This is not 1861 where up to 10 percent of the country is fighting each other on battlefields, and the effects of conventional war are widespread and devastating.

In LIC, historically, it’s only a small fraction of a country doing the fighting, and most people live among the disruption to go on about their business…

2. We’re in a “hot peace.” I certainly would not characterize America in 2016-2019 as being at “peace,” other than the absolute absence of outright war. The cultural cold war has turned hot; albeit at a very low level. If you ignore this, then you ignore reality…

3. It’s very likely to worsen. The tectonic shifts in American culture have caused periods of political violence before. The Civil Rights movement, the race riots and unrest between 1968 and the 1970s, and abortion clinic bombings are a few key examples, but even those ‘conflicts’ eventually died down. Oftentimes, conflict is generational. One generation goes away, and future generations develop their own problems.

For current generations, I believe conditions are more likely to worsen before they get better because the culture war now includes more fronts that foment the anger and resentment that cause political violence…

4. We could have just two to three years before we see routine, sustained political violence. For as long as I’ve been writing about LIC, I’ve warned of the effects of the next recession and financial crisis on the political and cultural climate. (I now believe that the next recession and financial crisis have an above average chance of happening simultaneously.) Class and race warfare, I believe, will worsen as we move through this period of economic and financial uncertainty.

High youth unemployment is a universal indicator of civil unrest and violence. What I’m seeing in America’s future are social bases charged by race, class, and/or politics, who also lack economic opportunity and the hope of a better life that comes with it…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Forward Observer: SHTF Intelligence & Decision-Making

Sam Culper of Forward Observer has a short video he recently posted, talking about what intelligence is and how it helps you make decisions. If you haven’t already thought about these things, then this a good introduction to the topic. If you’ve taken one of his classes or read his book, then it may be nothing new to you.

In an SHTF situation, we’ll be forced to make decisions. Some of them may be time-sensitive. Any fool can make decisions, but we want to make well-informed decisions. That means we need intelligence.

Related:

Sam Culper interview on Prepping 2.0 Podcast, discussing intelligence gathering for disasters or emergencies.

Forward Observer: SHTF Predictions & Intelligence Analysis

Sam Culper’s most recent Forward Observer podcast is about predictions about collapse as compared to using intelligence analysis to reduce uncertainty about the future.

Sam discusses how predictions are usually wrong, but that intelligence analysis does not make predictions. Rather intelligence analysis is used to reduce uncertainty about the future, to discover the most likely courses of action. He spends a little time at the end discussing how our country is already in collapse; a collapse that will simply continue, rather than being a sudden catastrophic event.

…One reason our society is already in collapse is because we can’t even agree on what American is. We’ve always had competing sides, but I think it could actually be different this time because so many on the Left are pushing so hard towards the Far Left. I don’t think it will be this election cycle that we swing hard left. But my concern is still that inequality is exploited so greatly and capitalism is so widely blamed for economic turmoil that in another decade we’ll have a legitimately far left government.

Our society is in collapse because half of America believes our Founders and their ideals are evil. Our society is in collapse because somewhere around one-third to one-half of us believe that government’s sole purpose is to take care of its citizens from cradle to grave, and to provide universal, fundamental human rights like healthcare and the freedom from want. Our society is in collapse because we’ve lost the one thing that used to unite us, which is the desire for freedom and liberty. We’ve lost our freedom and liberty incrementally since this country’s founding. And I say country, because we’re are no longer a nation. We are a country made of numerous nations, and that’s why I’m pessimistic about social cohesion.

Yes, it is an assumption; in fact, it’s my key assumption, that as things get worse financially and economically in America, that things will also get tougher socially and politically. I feel safe in making that assumption, because we’re already seeing this “low intensity conflict” bubbling beneath the surface of our country. And I’m concerned that the next election will make things much, much worse.

And if you want to talk about the value of intelligence analysis applied to SHTF preparedness, we really have to start with what Democrats are planning once they return to power. That, by the way, ends with how national-level politics will affect you locally…

FO: How to Start an ACE for Community Security

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has posted How do I start an ACE for community security or emergency preparedness? This article gives a brief overview of the analysis part of producing intelligence products. Sam has a wealth of information on this topic, and his book SHTF Intelligence is still available for in depth knowledge.

One of the major commitments I’m going to make to you in 2019 is to answer more questions and write more articles about intelligence and SHTF security. (And there’s a brand new Intelligence video series I’m recording for the Schoolhouse next month.)

I understand a lot of Americans are preparing for some very dire scenarios, and 2019 is showing no signs of slowing down with regard to instability and downside risk.

This morning, I want to write you my answer to a question from a Fox Company member:

“What are the first steps a [mutual assistance group] should take to build their ACE?”

First, let’s define the ACE. It stands for Analysis & Control Element, and it’s our intelligence section for disaster response, emergency preparedness, community security, an SHTF event, or however you want to characterize local operations.

Second, the best way to answer this question is to look at this like a progression:

1. Identify the threat/scenario
2. Define the mission
3. Build an ACE that can support the mission

We build the mission to respond to the threat.

For instance, a general and simple mission statement might look like this:

“Provide security operations for the community to prevent looters and potentially violent criminals from disrupting disaster relief efforts.”

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Forward Observer: Left Wing Outlets Push “Abolish the Senate” Message

From Forward Observer, Left wing outlets push “Abolish the Senate” message:

“Abolish the Senate.”

There’s growing sentiment in left wing circles that to achieve fairness in politics, the Senate should be abolished. (I’ll explain how in a moment…)

This opinion’s been published in left wing outlets like ThinkProgress, GQ, Washington Post, Jacobin, and others.

It was trending on social media and has been featured on left wing blogs.

Last month, Hillary Clinton called for abolishing the Electoral College. Now many progressives want to dismantle one part of the system of checks and balances.

I continually provide evidence that the United States is in a high grade culture war and that we’ve already entered into a low grade domestic conflict.

And every time I second guess or have doubts about my conclusions, I look at just how far left the Left wants to push our society, politics, and the U.S. Government.

A growing number of them want to end the American system of governance as as know it.

Here’s their argument against the Senate

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

FO: What Most People Get Wrong About Our ‘Civil War’

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has another piece in this series covering our ongoing domestic conflict, What most people get wrong about our ‘Civil War.’ It’s got some length to it, but it’s a good read with valuable information for you to understand.

…While a civil war, by definition, has not yet started, I do argue that a domestic conflict has already started (my specific thoughts are here, here, and here).

There are plenty of naysayers, and I understand their logic. They advise listeners or readers, “Go to your local Walmart or grocery store. Your local doctor’s office. Your local bank. Walk out your front door and talk to your neighbor.” They ask if Americans are at war with each other in these places, and use these anecdotes to explain that America isn’t locked into a civil war and won’t be.

They’re right in that regard. America isn’t at war.

But the problem with their argument is that it’s not all of America fighting the culture war, nor is it all of America fighting in the ongoing domestic conflict. It’s an ‘irate, tireless minority’. (The brunt of the ‘fighting’ in this conflict isn’t being waged by the average American, as two of my favorite thinkers people in the world — Victor Davis Hanson and Niall Ferguson — have alluded to. You can read my review of Ferguson’s latest book here.)

Another reason why most Americans — the overwhelming majority — aren’t engaged in our domestic conflict is because we’re still really early. Those engaged in establishing the battle lines of today’s culture war were ‘innovators’ in the 1990s. Those engaged in the culture war through the 2008 and 2016 elections were ‘early adopters’. But once the ‘early majority’ joins as soon as 2019-2021, the evidence of an active domestic conflict could be overwhelming. That’s a very distinct possibility.

My estimate is that we have maybe a few percent of the population pushing left or right extremes at the center of the culture war, but there’s an even smaller percentage (a fraction) that actually engages in political violence. There’s probably another 10 percent on either side actively engaged in political, information, and economic warfare. The remaining 75 percent is on the bubble, indifferent, or just plain stuck in the middle — a lot like other intra-state conflicts we’ve experienced.

So can we really have a domestic conflict with just a few thousand combatants?

Well, yeah. But we’re probably still very early.

To understand why we’re still in the beginning phases of our domestic conflict, we can look at three concepts…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Related:

The Organic Prepper: Are You Prepared for Lockdown? How to Stay Safe When All Hell Breaks Loose in America

…Add in the fiercely-fought midterm elections and the threat of civil unrest is high…

Strategic Culture Foundation: American Politics Is Now Just Civil War by Other Means

…Trump didn’t cause today’s polarization, he only exacerbates it because he punches back…

Monster Hunter Nation: The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha

…We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe…

Forward Observer: October Update on the Second American Civil War

The intel folks at Forward Observer have written a follow up piece on a possible second American civil war.

One of the central themes in contemporary insurgent movements is the relationship between armed combatant groups and their ostensibly peaceful political party cohorts.

The Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein in Ireland. Hezbollah, the Shi’ite militant group, and Hezbollah, the Shi’ite political party, in Lebanon. The YPG militant group and the Democratic Union Party in Kurdistan/Syria. Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Sadrist Party in Iraq. The Badr Brigade and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

There are numerous other examples of political parties having militant wings, in addition to examples of militant organizations establishing themselves as political parties during a conflict.

Historically, insurgent campaigns are more likely to lead to political resolutions than martial victories, so militant organizations must have political representation. On the other hand, violence carried out by a militant wing provides leverage for the political party and an incentive for governments to solve political issues peacefully.

Neither side necessarily has direct influence or control over the other, but they often act to accomplish mutually beneficial goals. A militant wing can offer muscle to a political party, and the political party can provide judicial protections to the militant wing.

So what I want to draw some attention to today is the association of Leftist militant organizations and various factions of the Democratic Party, as one potential way forward in the current domestic conflict. Specifically, I want to point out that while these militant groups don’t necessarily seek or depend on permission to commit violence, some Democratic Party voices offer that permission none the less. And the relationship between Leftist militant groups and the Democratic Party is often tenuous. While many (maybe most) militant Leftists have a disdain for the Democratic Party for not being radical enough, that doesn’t prevent actions that could be mutually beneficial for both sides.

Whether we’re talking about 1970s radical and former attorney general Eric Holder (“Michelle [Obama] says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ [Applause.] No. No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”), Hillary Clinton saying that maintaining civility with Republicans is futile, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraging her constituents to harass Republicans and Trump cabinet members, a campaign staffer for a Democratic politician saying that President Trump should be executed (an action for which he later denied his support), or other examples of green lighting incivility in the political and culture war, there’s ample evidence that major voices of the Democratic Party are dog whistling that violence is permissible, while officially denying support for political violence against opponents. There are many, many other examples beyond Holder, Clinton, and Waters. (See my last post for additional information.)

Beyond mainstream Democrats, there’s the growing “Democratic Socialist” faction whose ideologies are steeped in the revolutionary histories of Marxist and Leninist movements. Considering that many Leftist militant groups are supportive of “Democratic socialism”, a political movement that gains mainstream legitimacy — what we’re starting to see now — should be alarming. And then there’s also a growing communist movement in the United States, as revolutionary vanguard communist groups form across the country. There’s a very overt effort to label mainstream conservative voices as “fascist” and “Nazi”, in a successful effort to rationalize violence…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Forward Observer: 2019 Is Shaping Up to Be an Ugly, Brutal Year

From the intel guys at Forward Observer:

civil unrest

…The central hallmark of low intensity conflict is action below conventional war but above peaceful competition. We’ve had some pretty low lows in politics, but this period does seem to have escalated above peaceful competition between Republicans and Democrats. Fundamentally, there’s nothing inherently wrong with winning elections to stop an opposing party’s agenda. But when politics becomes subject to rule bending and breaking — the erosion of political norms often referred to as “guardrails” in civil society — we’re no longer seeing peaceful political competition. We can go as far back as gerrymandering, IRS targeting of conservative groups, and the show stopping of Merrick Garland as three prominent examples. And if that’s truly the case — that we’ve devolved into sustained open political warfare — then the country may well be stuck in a low intensity conflict at continual risk of organized political violence.

Looking forward to the next 12 months, I fear the convergence of two major trends: incivility in politics that breeds political violence and a recession that puts 10-25% of Americans out of work. It’s entirely possible that we arrive at this juncture of American history in 2020. Since the Democrats plan to make 2019 disruptive, there’s no reason to believe that 2020 would be any calmer. As ugly as the past two years have been, there are reasons to believe that 2019 and 2020 will be worse.

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.