Forward Observer: Our Gray Zone Future

“Gray Zone warfare is a set of actions that press conflict without starting an actual shooting war.” Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer talks about Our Gray Zone Future.

Gray Zone warfare is a set of actions that press conflict without starting an actual shooting war.

Like our own Low Intensity Conflict, these activities fall below the threshold of conventional war but remain well above peaceful, routine competition.

A book I’m reading outlines some CIA gray zone activities taken against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In addition to supporting the liberal intellectual class in the Soviet Union, CIA shopped books and films like Dr. Zhivago to Soviet outlets, which would distribute these often-unknowingly subversive materials.

Author Boris Pasternak writes in Dr. Zhivago, “[R]evolutions are made by fanatical men of action with one-track mind… They overturn the old order in a few hours or days, the whole upheaval takes a few weeks or at most years, but the fanatical spirit that inspired the upheavals is worshiped for decades thereafter, for centuries.”

This is a great example of the kind of subversive media the Agency seeded into the Soviet Union in order to foment revolution and topple the Soviet regime. This was Gray Zone warfare aimed at internal disruption.

Now bear with me for a moment…

French President Emmanuel Macron and other French intellectuals are renewing complaints about the dangerous ideas emanating from U.S. college campuses; specifically warning of “ideological excesses” that lead to the “ethnicization of the social question.”

These ideas on race, gender, post-colonialism, multiculturalism, and forced diversity — what Macron described in October 2020 as “certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States” — are undermining French society, according to Macron and other government officials.

Macron went so far as to warn that these ideas are “breaking the [French] republic in two.” France’s education minister last year remarked, “There’s a battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities.” French professor François Cusset summarized what’s happening: “It’s the sign of a small, frightened republic, declining, provincializing… and which thus seeks those responsible for its decline.”

This sounds oddly a lot like similar Gray Zone activities that undermined Soviet society during the Cold War, and which are now being propagated across the West.

I’m not explicitly saying that America’s current Cultural Revolution is the result of Cold War-era Gray Zone tactics come home to roost.

But maybe they are.

As if our own internal disputes weren’t enough, our domestic information environment is made even more complex due to foreign involvement in politics and the manipulation of public opinion through information operations.

The United States today is, virtually by definition, a Gray Zone of subversive ideas and armed belligerent groups. It’s a virtual certainty that foreign governments will become more involved.

Political pundits and casual observers have warned that another American Civil War is coming. They’re wrong. As I’ve been writing since 2016, it’s already started. We’re in the early stage of a Low Intensity Conflict and, regardless of the final form it takes, it’s likely to be waged well into this decade.

Given that Gray Zone warfare exists below conventional war — and it’s being waged by domestic groups if not foreign ones — it would behoove Americans to study gray skills, like intelligence and security.

We at Gray Zone Activity teach these skills for emergency preparedness and community security. I’d like to invite you to sign up for the Gray Zone newsletter to stay aware of our research and training. You can sign up at https://www.grayzoneactivity.com.
Always Out Front,
Samuel Culper

Forward Observer: One Major Left Wing Advantage Over the Right

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer discusses One Major Left Wing Advantage Over the Right

I was reading an article in a socialist magazine last week, where the author accused the Far Right of wanting the Far Left dead. Coincidentally, that’s the same thing the Far Right says of the Far Left: “They want us dead.” Ultimately, both sides may be correct.

A survey of soft and hard power availability likely dictates how each side will attempt to achieve its end goals.

This view of soft power and hard power may be the biggest strategy difference between right wing and left wing groups. In short, left wing groups exercise soft power, while right wing groups emphasize the use of hard power.

“Soft power” is influence, persuasion, and appealing to moral authority, as opposed to “hard power” which is primarily armed coercion and violence.

Exercising control over national institutions — the Cathedral of education, media, pop culture, the federal government and its agencies, etc. — is the center of gravity for this exercise of the Left’s soft power.

This is why athletes, musicians, and other pop culture figures are applauded for joining the social justice movement: this has always been an effort to saturate social justice messaging into the mainstream, to shape moral authority and the moral high ground, and activate those who sit outside the political and social spheres of influence.

In the information environment of today, it’s very difficult to sustain the use of hard power (coercion or violence) without substantial soft power.

But the reverse of this power balance is almost always true: the most important thing to understand about soft power is that it’s a great enabler of hard power. Soft power is the ability to frame information through a popular narrative, which absolutely supports armed violence if the message can shape the moral high ground that supports it.

One reason why Floyd’s Rebellion went on all summer is because of soft power messaging that justified violence and property damage. In the summer of 2020, how many times were we told that “A riot is the language of the unheard”? Through this moral imperative, the country was obligated to hear the rioters.

This is a lesson that the Far Right is learning the hard way. They exercise very little soft power because they’ve been cut off from the most widely available mainstream avenues.

This is why the Far Right, as of right now and likely by design, is doomed to the use of hard power to achieve its goals. It cannot achieve its goals politically, especially not with the rapidly shifting political and demographic landscape. With no soft power to gain support for the use of hard power, the Far Right is likely to ultimately lose.

For the Far Left (and the broader Left, in general), soft power (the ability to shape popular moral authority) is and will continue being used to support hard power (coercion and violence). Social pressure, the politics of exclusion and federal law enforcement action is primarily how they’ll pursue their goals against the Far Right.
Here’s the ground truth of this Low Intensity Conflict: unless the Far Right can build substantial soft power through political representation and access to the mainstream, violence is the only way forward. This is why these avenues are being shut off. It’s also why “There is no political solution” is a popular refrain among the Far Right. They already know it.

This is likely why there’s a growing government focus on domestic violent extremism (DVE) — not because of the levels of violence today, but because of the likelihood of growing levels of violence to come. It’s going to be a long decade.

Until next time, be well.

Always Out Front,
Samuel Culper

Rutherford Institute: Enemies of the Deep State – The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap

Constitutional law attorney John Whitehead at the Rutherford Institute writes Enemies of the Deep State: The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap

“This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends. What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? [The proposed legislation could create] a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”—Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman

This is how it begins.

We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, “domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of civil liberties.

Of course, “domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye phrase, to be used interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist,” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”

Watch and see: we are all about to become enemies of the state.

In a déjà vu mirroring of the legislative fall-out from 9/11, and the ensuing build-up of the security state, there is a growing demand in certain sectors for the government to be given expanded powers to root out “domestic” terrorism, the Constitution be damned.

If this is a test of Joe Biden’s worthiness to head up the American police state, he seems ready.

As part of his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to confront and defeat “a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism.” Biden has also asked the Director of National Intelligence to work with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out a “comprehensive threat assessment” of domestic terrorism. And then to keep the parallels going, there is the proposed Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, introduced after the Jan. 6 riots, which aims to equip the government with “the tools to identify, monitor and thwart” those who could become radicalized to violence.

Don’t blink or you’ll miss the sleight of hand.

This is the tricky part of the Deep State’s con game that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

It follows the same pattern as every other convenient “crisis” used by the government as an excuse to expand its powers at the citizenry’s expense and at the expense of our freedoms.

As investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald warns:

“The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’ that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This New War on Terror—one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting ‘extremists’ and ‘domestic terrorists’ among American citizens on U.S. soil—presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.”

Greenwald is referring to the USA Patriot Act, passed almost 20 years ago, which paved the way for the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since Sept. 11, 2001.

Some members of Congress get it.

In a letter opposing expansion of national security powers, a handful congressional representatives urged their colleagues not to repeat the mistakes of the past:

“While many may find comfort in increased national security powers in the wake of this attack, we must emphasize that we have been here before and we have seen where that road leads. Our history is littered with examples of initiatives sold as being necessary to fight extremism that quickly devolve into tools used for the mass violation of the human and civil rights of the American people… To expand the government’s national security powers once again at the expense of the human and civil rights of the American people would only serve to further undermine our democracy, not protect it.”

Cue the Emergency State, the government’s Machiavellian version of crisis management that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

This is the power grab hiding in plain sight, obscured by the political machinations of the self-righteous elite. This is how the government continues to exploit crises and use them as opportunities for power grabs under the guise of national security. Indeed, this is exactly how the government added red flag gun laws, precrime surveillance, fusion centers, threat assessments, mental health assessments, involuntary confinement to its arsenal of weaponized powers.

The objective is not to make America safe again. That has never been the government’s aim.

Greenwald explains:

“Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new ‘domestic terrorism’ laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because—just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws—their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.”

So you see, the issue is not whether Donald Trump or Roger Stone or MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell deserve to be banned from Twitter, even if they’re believed to be spouting misinformation, hateful ideas, or fomenting discontent.

Rather, we should be asking whether any corporation or government agency or entity representing a fusion of the two should have the power to muzzle, silence, censor, regulate, control and altogether eradicate so-called “dangerous” or “extremist” ideas.

This unilateral power to muzzle free speech represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might pose.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

The groundwork has already been laid.

The trap is set.

All that is needed is the right bait.

With the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents have been busily spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers by way of AI (artificial intelligence) now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

For instance, police in major American cities have been using predictive policing technology that allows them to identify individuals—or groups of individuals—most likely to commit a crime in a given community. Those individuals are then put on notice that their movements and activities will be closely monitored and any criminal activity (by them or their associates) will result in harsh penalties.

In other words, the burden of proof is reversed: you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Dig beneath the surface of this kind of surveillance/police state, however, and you will find that the real purpose of pre-crime is not safety but control.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to one FBI latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”

Additionally, according to Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism.”

In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.

Again, where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program renders otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the corporate sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones and balloons that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify so-called criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.

There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.

All you really need to be is a citizen of the American police state.

Forward Observer: Early Warning for Thursday, Jan. 28, 2021

Intelligence company Forward Observer send out to subscribers a daily summary of national information with analysis. Occasionally, Forward Observer will publicly publish these so that you can see what you get for your subscription. Below is their Early Warning report for Thursday, Jan. 28, 2021.

Good morning. Here’s your Early Warning for Thursday, 28 January 2021.

DOWNLOAD PDF

TODAY’S BRIEFING:

The GameStop pump is a populist revolt

Significant Activity Rollup

Leftists employing risk assessment tools

Anarchists call for suburban riots to regain 2020 drive

Alleged III% militia member and Trump supporter arrested for explosives

Upcoming Event Calendar

InFocus: The GameStop pump is a populist revolt

In yesterday’s InFocus, I wrote about the GameStop trade, where a group of Reddit users, gamers, and trolls have now reportedly caused a total of $23.6 billion in losses for hedge funds and others short-selling the GameStop stock. I described it as a form of digital plunder and questioned when social tribes would realize the immense power they could wield by weaponizing things not traditionally thought of as weapons. More than digital plunder, though, this is a populist revolt against the financial elite.

Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian described it as a “bottom-up revolution,” adding that he doesn’t believe society can come back to a world where this never happened. Anthony Scaramucci of Skybridge Capital described it as “the French Revolution of Finance.” In other words, social bases are realizing they can build new forms of non-traditional power through tribal communities connected via the internet, which is exactly what you’d expect in a Fourth Generation war.

Fourth Generation War is waged by tribal entities, against each other or against the state (sometimes both), and it exists because citizens increasingly give their allegiance to their tribes — social, ideological, political, racial/ethnic, religious, etc. — rather than to the nation-state. Nationality becomes a secondary or tertiary identity at best. There are probably lots of reasons that explain why this is happening, but I believe it’s primarily because unpopular wars, financial crises and bailouts and public corruption have eroded the federal government’s legitimacy over the past 20 years. We know that governments suffering from a legitimacy crisis virtually always leads to internal strife, which is why we’re in a protracted low intensity conflict likely to last well into this decade.

Here’s why this gets worse. Instead of taking the loss, the elite class struck back. Reddit restricted access to the Wall Street Bets forum (where the GameStop plan was hatched), chat service Discord deleted the Wall Street Bets server, NASDAQ (the exchange where GameStop is listed) suggested a future trading halt “to give investors a chance to recalibrate their positions,” and popular trading apps like Robinhood restricted new buy orders on GameStop to reverse the rise of the stock price. There are likely to be new regulations and possibly legislation aimed at preventing another iteration, and there may even be bailouts for Wall Street firms wrecked by this nasty trade reversal. Yes, there was a potential for large losses to worsen if no action was taken, with debt defaults being passed off as losses to banks and insurers, which some say could threaten financial contagion. But the attempts to both limit the damage and erase these tribal villages from the internet will backfire. Instead of giving up, members of the digital populist revolt are vowing to redouble their efforts to drive the GameStop share prices higher and punish the hedge funds, even if it means financial ruin. On this morning’s open, GameStop soared momentarily to $469, and sits at $226 at the time this report was published. According to NASDAQ data, 129% of GameStop shares are still in open short positions.

Ultimately, this is a net win for populists and another “red pill” that delegitimizes the ruling class. The extremely online Generation Z was exposed to possibly it’s first glimpse of “the system” in action, where it’s okay for Wall Street to profit from the demise of others, but it’s not okay for financial elites to get wrecked. This is probably going to ensure the survival of populism for another generation in what the elites hope is a post-Trump, counter-populist, technocratic society. They’re going to be wrong. – S.C.

Significant Activity Rollup

WHITE HOUSE:

The Biden administration is developing a commission to study reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. At least one commission member has expressed openness to expanding the Supreme Court. (Analyst Comment: As we recently see, lawsuits filed by conservatives states are likely to plague the Biden administration’s efforts to enact some executive orders and other federal policies. Texas won a lawsuit this week after a federal judge, a Trump appointee, blocked the administration’s plan to “pause” deportations for 100 days, which likely confirmed administration expectations of judicial roadblocks spurring the commission in the first place. The order is temporary, and the Biden administration is appealing. – S.C.)

SENATE:

Nothing Significant to Report (NSTR)

HOUSE:

NSTR

DHS:

The Department of Homeland Security issued a national terrorism bulletin yesterday, warning that domestic violent extremists (DVE) “could continued to mobilize to incite or commit violence.” (AC: The report didn’t cite a credible or specific threat. I’m not discounting the risk of political violence, but this really looks like an attempt to keep this topic in national headlines and create latitude for the Biden administration to pursue DVE security policies and possibly legislation. For years, we’ve reported on “accelerationist” chatter, while accelerationists have complained about the lack of accelerationist violence. For now, there simply isn’t enough right wing violence to justify the Biden administration’s policy plans, which leads me to believe that these efforts are directed towards a future where domestic policies foment unrest, protests, and possibly political violence by right wing groups or individuals. Biden executive orders, regulation changes, or legislation aimed at gun control will likely be a trigger for renewed unrest, which could follow immediately after these new DVE policies and/or laws are passed. – S.C.)

LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT INTSUM

Leftists employing risk assessment tools

Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists and antifascists are conducting risk assessments when building affinity groups, identifying member roles, and planning for public disruptions. One basic risk assessment tool they are employing is PEARL — physical capabilities, emotional capabilities, arrest-ability, roles, and loose ends. (AC: Far Left groups continue to riot and carry out disruptions this year, but lack the massive public attendance of 2020. They are utilizing these risk assessment tools, especially considering the wave of federal action against anti-state suspects, in an effort to reduce excessive or unnecessary exposure to law enforcement. In addition, they could allow for better role identification within affinity groups and better planning for higher impact disruptions. – M.B.)

Anarchists call for suburban riots to regain 2020 drive

In response to a loss of momentum of 2020 level riots, the anarchist groups Leveller and Ultra called for Leftists to shift their efforts away from large metropolitan areas and focus on the suburbs or smaller cities. They observed that urban areas are heavily policed, awash with surveillance systems, and can easily be cordoned off to stifle rioting. They stated and provided supporting materials that detail the weaknesses and advantages of these smaller cities. They noted that suburban police departments tend to be heavily equipped, but lack the experience and skill to handle unruly crowds. They highlighted the fact that they can easily be provoked into overstepping and responding with disproportionate force. They also noted that these areas often lack proper, established law enforcement staging areas, are harder to cordon off, and give the advantage to larger crowds. Finally, they recommended that rioters adopt a tactic of small groups employing vehicles to outmaneuver overwhelmed police, setting fires, looting, and serving as mobile “nodes of the riot.” (AC: We’re observing multiple groups proposing the establishment of anarchist hubs in suburban areas or smaller cities. This roughly began in October 2020 when Far Left mutual aid groups called for supporters to build infrastructure in smaller cities like Kenosha, Wisconsin, and later in Vancouver, Washington. Moving out of dense metropolitan areas into smaller cities is based on tactical considerations as well as a likely attempt to avoid isolation. – M.B.)

Federal court charges alleged Three Percenter and Trump supporter

Federal prosecutors charged Ian Rogers of Northern California for possessing unregistered explosive devices this week. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) raided Rogers’ home on 15 January following anonymous tips received in late 2020 from a disgruntled former employee that he possessed illegal firearms. The FBI repeatedly dismissed the tips on the basis that there was no connection to terrorism. The JTTF decided to act on the tip following the 06 January riot at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. In total, law enforcement seized five pipe bombs, “materials to make more,” 49 firearms, and several bomb making manuals. According to documents, agents also noted III% stickers on Rogers’ vehicles, a reference to the Three Percent ideology. Rogers’ attorney said he has no connection to the 06 January riot and added, “Mr. Rogers is not a member of any militia, or any hate group. He doesn’t espouse extremist views, even the tipster endorsed that when he was interviewed by law enforcement.” (AC: Rogers could face terrorism charges due to an exchange of text messages concerning bombings and attacks on Democrats, technology companies, and George Soros in combination with possession of explosives. Federal prosecutors highlighted a III% sticker on his vehicle and a gag gift “white privilege” card to suggest he was part of a larger, anti-state, white supremacist movement. Members of conservative militia groups will be increasingly scrutinized by federal law enforcement over the next few years, especially with any new domestic terrorism legislation being passed. We can likely expect more raids from federal law enforcement under the new administration as they appear to be taking action on a backlog of previously dismissed tips. Further attribution of acts of political violence or terrorist plots with the gun rights movement could trigger high intensity conflict. – M.B.) [source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1360811/download%5D

Upcoming Event Calendar

30 January: Justice for Juan Hummel Jr. (Bothell, WA)

31 January: “Black Lives (Still) Matter” disruption (Seattle, WA)

— END REPORT

S.C. indicates analyst commentary from Samuel Culper

M.B. indicates analyst commentary from Max Baer

Forward Observer: January’s Unrestricted Warfare

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer summarizes January’s Unrestricted Warfare in the ongoing saga of America’s low intensity conflict.

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Forward Observer Dispatch, where I get to share my latest thoughts on Low Intensity Conflict, or the “war at home.”

I’m working my way through Unrestricted Warfare, a 1999 paper written by two colonels in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The timing is serendipitous because I see this book reflected in current events.

The authors’ premise is simple: the United States is stuck with a view of warfare that’s going to be increasingly outmoded in the future. Facing a far superior conventional superpower, American adversaries (e.g., China) will simply change the definition of war to include traditionally non-war activities that will be used on non-traditional battlefields. This kind of asymmetry short-circuits conventional national security strategies.

The authors describe the use of any force — armed or unarmed, military or non-military, lethal or non-lethal — that exploits the myopic American view of war. Unrestricted Warfare sought a new concept of weapons: cyber, economic, commercial, financial, information, political, or literally anything else than can be weaponized and used against any adversary target, making just about anywhere a potential battlefield. This may seem like old news now, but it was ahead of its time more than 20 years ago.

Prior to 06 January, a concerted effort was already underway to set the stage for the “de-Trumpification” of politics and society. After the Capitol protest, I think we’re seeing a kind of Unrestricted Warfare develop against Donald Trump and everything in his orbit.

Here’s a hefty, albeit incomplete, list of political, economic, and information warfare against Trump and his supporters:

Lists of Trump administration officials, donors, and supporters, including personal information such as home addresses

Planned boycotts of companies that hire former Trump administration officials

Pressure against companies to not hire former Trump administration officials

Boycotts of companies that make political donations to Republicans who opposed the election certification

Banning of dozens of high profile, Trump supporting social media accounts

Initial claims by the Justice Department that Capitol protesters sought to “capture and assassinate elected officials,” which was later withdrawn due to a lack of evidence

FBI warnings of wide scale violence ahead of last weekend, repeated breathlessly by the media, but which ever materialized

Calls for the IRS to investigate and disqualify tax exempt political groups present at the Capitol protest

Calls for a “USA PATRIOT Act 2.0” to combat domestic right wing extremism

Legislation entitled “Insurrection Financing Transparency Act,” which would force the disclosure of ownership information of private companies alleged to have given money to tax exempt political groups at the Capitol protest

Calls for Facebook to expand de-platforming of “domestic terror networks,” and the encouraged hiring a full-time executive to counter extremism on the social media platform

Cancellation of data hosting services for Parler, and continued campaigns to prevent use of the social media site

Leaking and/or hacking of data on Parler databases, and the exploitation to expose personal information such as geolocation data and potentially images of driver’s licenses

Revoking the availability of Parler from the Apple and Google app stores

Calls for “de-programming” and “re-education” efforts against Trump supporters

Calls for a new domestic security agency to track right wing domestic terror groups

Calls for the Federal Communications Commission to counter broadcast outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN

Pressure against cable and data companies to drop FoxNews, Newsmax, and OAN

Pundit and “expert” comparisons of Trump supporters to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists, feeding further fear and needless agitation

I’m surely omitting some, but these are from recent recollection and our Early Warning reports.

If there’s a whiff of violence accurately or inaccurately associated with the right wing during tomorrow’s inauguration, then there’s going to be a long train of additional measures, regulations, and, probably, laws implemented to counter future violence and Trump-like political movements.

I look at the buildup of active duty Army and National Guard troops in D.C., and it is concerning. I think it’s primarily a show of force meant to deter attacks, and overreaction out of an abundance of caution.

It also carries with it substantial political benefits for the incoming Biden administration, which can use the drastic measures to continually warn of the dangers of boisterous political opposition.

In the coming weeks and months, we could see warnings towards Republicans to curb their language — something like, “You can disagree, but your anti-Biden rhetoric will inflame these potential domestic terrorists.”

I ask what kind of curbs might be put on political language and the freedom of speech in light of perceived potential violence. The Capitol protest has been built up into something much greater than it actually was, and those political and social effects are going to linger for years.

Until next time, be well.

Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

Breitbart: Live Updates U.S. Capitol Descends into Chaos on Day of Electoral College Certification

Breitbart provides live updates on the chaos in DC.

5:51 P.M. NBC reports that the woman shot earlier in the Capitol building has died.

BREAKING: The woman has died, several law enforcement officials say – @PeteWilliamsNBC https://t.co/jE1Kpl3Sid

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 6, 2021

5:50 P.M.

BREAKING: Facebook has removed the president’s video from its platform, @jolingkent reports.

Pres. Trump began the video by reiterating the lie that the election “was stolen.” https://t.co/2Dq0RmNCff

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 6, 2021

5:43 P.M. CNN reports the Capitol building has been secured.

Sergeant at Arms has announced the U.S. Capitol building is now secure, according to press pool reporters
(via @kristin__wilson)

— Ram Ramgopal (@RamCNN) January 6, 2021

5:35 P.M.

A flash lights up the front of the U.S. Capitol as a mob of Trump supporters control the steps of the building. pic.twitter.com/fulKu8FPzo

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 6, 2021

5:14 P.M.

This is nuts. The Acting Secretary of Defense acknowledging that he and the Joint Chiefs Chairman did not discuss deploying the National Guard with President Trump – but rather with VP Pence and Congressional leaders. pic.twitter.com/b8gAT9bnSC

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) January 6, 2021

5:06 P.M.

U.S. Marshals Service is joining with other law enforcement agencies in supporting the U.S. Capitol Police during operations in Washington, DC, Marshals Service says.

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 6, 2021

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 https://forwardobserver.com/grayzone. 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.

Briefly…

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

American Partisan: Low Intensity Conflict SitRep

Author Angery American writes a Low Intensity Conflict Sitrep for American Partisan, detailing his observations about the conflict roiling America.

Far Left insurgency showing signs of development

In November 2018, I put forth the theory that the development of “Combat Support” and “Combat Service Support” classes would be the surest and most important indicator that a Far Left insurgency was, in fact, developing.

What we’re talking about is called a “tooth to tail” ratio. Doctrinally, the Army’s tooth-to-tail ratio is somewhere around 1:7; that is, seven support personnel for every one gunfighter. Conventional combat arms troops in the field require sustainment for their operations. They need food and water, ammunition, vehicle repair, radio communications, intelligence, medical support, and a host of other services that they can’t provide for themselves. Combat support and combat service support provide the services and sustainment to maintain operations.

Traditionally, combat support class includes support like intelligence, signal (communications), chemical, and military police. The combat service support class includes services like finance, quartermaster (supply), and transportation (logistics), among others.

Nearly two years ago, I was seeing little in the way of dedicated operational support classes among Far Left groups. Previous indicators showed that Far Left groups involved in violence and destruction were either self-funded or funded through social justice organizations, which provided protest materials, along with mobilization and organization of activists for cover. The equipment, such as shields, drums, bull horns, firearms, incendiaries, and other accessories, carried or used in these demonstrations and riots were likely self-provided. Those involved in violent and destructive activities, such as antifascist black bloc groups, largely did double duty, to include their own support activities. While this is still the case in many places, we are seeing indications that these groups have and continue to develop more advanced capabilities. The best indicator of a developing Far Left insurgency is the establishment of these combat support and combat services support roles, which will better enable violence and destruction into the future. (What follows is a draft version of this report and contains only partial findings.)

Combat Support

Intelligence: From doxxing Far Right activists, to gathering information on the disposition of law enforcement and their tactics, techniques, and procedures, Far Left activists since at least 2016 have emphasized the importance of intelligence. Information gathering and sharing occurred in two places: 1) online, where virtual support from like-minded activists across the country was a crucial part of intelligence operations; and 2) within closed and mostly secure affinity groups, where intelligence continues to be disseminated in-person or digitally. In the past year, antifascist and other Far Left groups have progressed in their intelligence capabilities to include real-time intelligence gathering during demonstrations and riots. There are indications that some of these groups are utilizing real-time or near real-time mapping (or “battle tracking”) during these events, as well. Dedicated reconnaissance and surveillance, however rudimentary, feeds situational awareness and provides early warning during skirmishes with law enforcement. It’s important to note that scouting — fixed or mobile reconnaissance and surveillance — has been developed into a role and responsibility of its own, away from the larger body of activists. This indicates that a distinct combat support class has developed.

Signal/Communications: While Far Left groups have relied on social media for propaganda and non-secure communications, they’re increasingly reliant on more secure means of communication. Popular digital communication tools such as Signal, RiseUp, Telegram and other email and instant messaging platforms feature more secure transmissions and/or end-to-end encryption. We’ve also observed the use of VHF/UHF radios during demonstrations, although this mode of communication is highly susceptible to interception and direction finding; a noted security vulnerability. The use of SMS text messaging or instant messaging apps like Signal (and others) have become popular. Security best-practices often include instructions for participants to use burner phones, or to avoid bringing their personal cell phones with them altogether. This could indicate that dissemination of intelligence is the responsibility of a limited number of participants. It likely indicates that many of these groups routinely rely on reach-back capability for their real-time intelligence and situational awareness, and that a signal/communications combat support class has developed.

There are reports circulating that the DHS has been using technology like Stingray units to clone the phones of protestors and have developed a very detailed picture of the leadership of ANTIFA and BLM. The reports claim this is al leading up to the use of the Insurrection Act to start a widescale roundup of key member of both organizations. The problem with this idea is this, the President cannot invoke the act, it takes Congressional approval and considering the current composition of the House, that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

However, it is good to see the feds taking these groups seriously and working to take them down.

Combat Service Support

Finance: The funding of Far Left insurgent activities has been subject to wide speculation. As previously stated, their operations are largely self-funded through personal income, crowdfunding, or other donors. Some have suggested that these groups are receiving formal funding or even external (foreign) support. Because we lack access to financial transactions, it’s difficult for us to determine how much of these reports and/or rumors are true. At least some of these groups likely receive funding that trickles down through social justice organizations. Yet many of these groups rely on crowdfunding, which is run by specific members, potentially indicating the development of a finance class.

In every insurgency there are those looking to profit. The founder of Atlanta BLM has been arrested for fraud and money laundering. It’s alleged that Sir Maejor Page has been charged after using $200K in donations to the group for personal use. From purchasing himself a house to tailored suits. There have been other cases of individuals misusing or even fraudulently soliciting donations on behalf of the group.

Quartermaster: As many recently saw via viral videos of a U-Haul in Louisville, Kentucky dropping off signs, shields, and other materials to activists, at least some of the supply for Far Left insurgencies is becoming centralized, indicating the development of a quartermaster or supply class. In several instances, shields and other products used in violent and destructive behavior have been put together via assembly line. In other cases, Far Left insurgency participants have used crowdfunding to purchase both offensive and defense materials for use during demonstrations, which further indicates that a supply class may be developing.

Transportation: I’ve personally witnessed the use of vans, either personally-owned or rentals, to drop off and pick up antifascist black bloc participants. During 2017’s “Battle of Auburn,” which turned out to be pretty tame, I followed the Atlanta Antifascists black bloc back to the parking lot of a nearby Burger King, where group members took off their gear, drank bottled water from a case, and eventually departed in a beige van with Georgia plates. During one instance in Dallas, I witnessed what was likely a rental van providing transportation and logistics for a small black bloc contingent. There have been widespread and sometimes unsubstantiated claims of antifascist activists being bussed into events. That said, there have been several confirmed cases of mass, centralized transportation, which may indicate that a transportation class is developing.

Why this matters

From Summer 2016 through 2019, I maintained that a low grade, low intensity conflict had already started and was ongoing. That conclusion was and continues to be directly supported by a multitude of evidence from the period. Starting in Spring 2020 through the Summer, and now entering the Fall, we’ve undoubtedly entered a period of accelerating conflict. Given that Far Left insurgent capabilities are advancing, there’s a growing risk of much more advanced disruption, which I’ll explain in a future special Early Warning report.

In the meantime, the Intelligence Requirements I’ve been primarily concerned with answering is 1) When and how will this low intensity conflict accelerate?, and 2) What can we expect during a period of worsening low intensity conflict? (In other words, just how bad are things going to get?)
Lastly, we have one event in particular that took place this weekend that concerns me. Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys had previously announced a rally in Portland, scheduled for Saturday, 26 September. This week, the City of Portland denied an assembly permit for the group. If Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys show up, this will be the first major event since Aaron Danielson was murdered almost one month ago. While the shooting event angered the Portland area’s right wing contingent, desired responses were mixed. Some called for de-escalation, while others advocated retribution for Danielson’s murder. This is a situation where additional armed political violence could occur.

HYRBID-INSURGENCY

In these reports I have been detailing the events and actions of the current insurgency. From the outside it appears to be social unrest over police actions, a natural reaction by the people to perceived injustice. However, if we dig a little further, things get muddy pretty damn quick.

As stated previously, a hybrid-insurgency consists of non-state actors working in consort with State actors. In this case, there are two states at play (and maybe more), China and elements of the Democratic party. This is a worst-case scenario. A foreign nation attempting to replace our form of government with assistance from inside that very government. And for most people, they have no idea what is really going on as the majority of the media outlets across the nation are complicit in the action.

Proof of this is a recent report in the Washington Post which claims that Putin is overseeing a campaign to discredit Biden, because, you know, Putin and Trump have a bromance going on. The real problem is the article is written and submitted as fact with the only proof being, a Washington Post reporter was told something by a CIA asset. There are a couple of reasons for this, one of which is the CIA really wants to restart the old Cold War. The other is, they really, really want Trump out of office.

In the first essay I wrote on the insurgency I listed the three sides of the struggle, the Marxists, the .Gov and the Right. The Right sees itself as standing up for the government, defending the ideals the nation was founded on. The Marxists see the government as a tyrannical regime that needs toppled to install a workers paradise, much like… well, I can’t think of one. Then there’s the government.

One of the most dangerous issues with all this is that the government is actually more afraid of the Right, the ones throwing their support behind them, than they are of the Marxists. Proof of this can be found in the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer event held in Portland over the weekend.

The Proud Boys applied for a permit for their gathering and were denied, the city citing COVID restrictions on gatherings. Let that sink in. Not only were they denied a permit, when they said they were coming anyway, the Governor called in the State Police to deal with them and also opened the ruled of engagement. Police in Portland have been banned from using tear gas and impact munitions against protestors in the city for some time. That was changed when the Proud Boys arrived on the scene. Police were given full authority to use those tools once again.

And while the event went off without an issue, the two sides never came into contact with one another, it shows a very clear signal as to who is supporting who. When taken into consideration with the fact the DOJ still sees Right-Wing Extremism as the greatest threat to the nation, we on the Right, should take notice and remember that fact. For, if this does indeed go kinetic, and I can see nothing stopping it at this point, there will be both opportunity and disaster in the offing.

Obviously, if the Marxists win, we are screwed. If we win though, there is opportunity for real change. Restoring our Republic should be the highest priority. Our allegiance should not be to politicians or even party, but to our nation. We are a Democratic Republic. Rather, we once were and that is the foundation this country was built upon. But through apathy and attrition, we are far removed from that today.

I will predict now, that should the Right prevail the .Gov will move quickly to dispose of any leaders that rose to the top to win the fight. As I warned earlier, exercise caution, less we become the useful idiots. With victory over the Marxists we will need to turn out attention to the real reforms our nation needs. Term limits, first and foremost, will prevent the sort of condition our country is currently in. As well as the repeal of all laws that limit or turn a right into a privilege. Numerous federal agencies with no Constitutional provisions need to be shut down. The two party system should be abolished. These are but a few of the real reforms we need.

The sad thing is, it’s these very reforms that so many Americans, regardless of political affiliation, believe in, that will make the government we support in the upcoming clash to turn its attention on us. During the hostilities the .Gov will go to great lengths to show its support for those defending it. It will pay lip service to the many changes, reversion is a better term, that the people will demand. The real danger will be when victory is achieved and the .Gov is still in a war fighting position. It is then, if we are not vigilant, that they will turn their focus on those that fought to support them.

CONFLICT WARNING

Caucasus: In previous reports I covered the growing tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Over the weekend the growing tension erupted into conflict. While it is still unclear exactly which side initiated the conflict, it appears Azerbaijan is responsible. A missile barrage kicked off the conflict which quickly escalated into exchanges of artillery, airstrikes and ground forces engaging in direct combat. Armenian forces claim to have destroyed three Azerbaijani tanks, shot down two helicopters and three drones. Video footage backs up the destruction of the armor, seen being struck and burning on the mountainous terrain.

Armenia has declared a state of war and is mobilizing its military. In response, Turkey has called for Armenia, which is majority Christian, to cease offensive operations, blaming them for the hostilities. It is also reported that Turkey has moved some of its proxy troops from Syria into Azerbaijan. If this is true, it is a major escalation and a sign this could quickly develop into a broader conflict. The international community, including Russia which has interests in the region, have called for a cessation of hostilities and negotiations to begin.

Upcoming Event Calendar

03 October: Unsilent Majority march (Washington, D.C.)

03 October: Black Gunz Formation (Lafayette, LA)

06 October: National Night Out for Safety & Liberation (BLM) (Minneapolis, MN)

09 October: We Will Not Go Quietly (BLM) (Bedford, PA)

31 October: The Modern Revolution (Insurgence USA) (Salt Lake City, UT)

— END REPORT

Chris Weatherman, also known as Angery American, is the author of the Survivalist series of books. The first book in the series, Going Home is a sensational hit. He’s twice been listed on the USA Today Best Sellers list. To date he has sixteen published works. He also appeared in season one of History Channel’s Alone series.

Chris has been involved in prepping since the 90’s and practices primitive skills as well as modern survival that focuses on being prepared with the proper equipment. He travels the country appearing at expos and prepper focused events to meet with readers, sign books and occasionally speak. In addition to these events his travels also allow him to meet and train with people all over the country.

You can find him on Face Book at Angery American. On Twitter at The Angery American and on Instagram as Angery American. He also has a YouTube channel under the same name. Feel free to reach out, as he enjoys meeting and talking with those interested in survival in all its forms.

Chris currently lives in Florida on the edge of the Ocala National Forest with his wife of twenty-six years and his thirteen year old daughter Little Bit.

Organic Prepper: Battle Zones Erupting Across America

This article comes from Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper – Literal Battle Zones Are Erupting All Over America

Part of the “new normal” in America seems to be battle zones erupting across the nation. I’m not just talking about protests, but full-on sieges that may last for days, weeks, or even months. Some of these began due to acts of police brutality, while others have taken on lives of their own with wholesale looting and violence.

The United States of America we see today is incredibly different from the one we saw at the beginning of the year. We’ve been wracked by a pandemic, a subsequent economic catastrophe, and massive, widespread civil unrest.

Let’s take a look at these pockets of violent behavior. (WARNING: This article contains videos with violent content.)

Kenosha, Wisconsin

Yesterday, police officers shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, in the back as he tried to enter the vehicle where his children were. Blake is in stable condition and expected to live, but the shocking video has spread virally across social media. You can see the cell phone footage below. (Violence Warning)

Police shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black father, several times in the back today in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was getting into his car after apparently breaking up a fight between two women. His three sons were inside the car and witnessed a cop shooting their father! He’s pic.twitter.com/3maVuX5qYk

— Prince (@Prince31590353) August 24, 2020

Kenosha, a city in Wisconsin of about one hundred thousand people, quickly erupted in protest of the shooting. (Never think these things only happen in large cities – here is an inside look at the Ferguson riots of 2014.)

Escape the cities… https://t.co/iTuuObjJQq

— TheMadPrepper (@TheMadPrepper) August 24, 2020

Kenosha, Wisconsin

pic.twitter.com/2xC3Hady3y

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 24, 2020

Protests, riots, and looting are expected to continue in Kenosha.

Denver, Colorado

Not only is Colorado currently beset by wildfires, but it’s also plagued with violent civil unrest. Over the weekend, rioters set out to destroy property in downtown Denver.

Antifa are smashing the windows of every storefront in Denver, Colorado. pic.twitter.com/mhw2xxeSjw

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 23, 2020

One Twitter user reported that a group of protesters had gathered in front of a police department in Denver, and that a van pulled up to hand out shields.

A protest in front of Denver Police headquarters is small but has escalated quickly. About 50 protesters are here right now, many with shields and helmets. A van pulled up and passed out shields to protesters. Protesters are at a standoff with a SWAT team now #9News pic.twitter.com/XlzmcenfG9

— Marc Sallinger (@MarcSallinger) August 23, 2020

The Denver “protesters” called for the abolition of police.

A group of about 40 people protested outside the Denver Police Department headquarters Saturday night and marched through streets in the area, blocking traffic. Some clashed with officers, set fires and broke windows…

…Chemical agents were deployed to control the crowd and eight people were taken into custody…

…Copter4 was over 13th and Delaware when people in the group were breaking windows.

People in the group set two small fires, which were quickly extinguished. (source)

Portland, Oregon

Riots have been ongoing in Portland for months, and this weekend, several notable events occurred.

On Saturday, rioters fought one another in the streets.

Protesters at Portland rallies to show support for police and President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign engaged in physical combat repeatedly with counterprotesters Saturday without police intervention. Members of the chaotic crowd used an array of weapons, including baseball bats and firearms to beat and threaten those they opposed…

…Pro-Trump demonstrators, people carrying shields with references to the QAnon conspiracy theory and members of the Proud Boys — a self-described chauvinist group that regularly engages in violence — all gathered around noon, some carrying rifles…

…Counterprotesters from anti-fascist groups like Popular Mobilization PDX also gathered Saturday, and the two groups quickly began shouting at each other and engaging in tense, face-to-face confrontations in front of the Multnomah County Justice Center.

Within an hour of meeting, protesters began to push each other and throw objects. Some demonstrators on the pro-police side fired paintball guns and deployed pepper spray on counterdemonstrators. Other protesters used baseball bats. Many people wore helmets and body armor as they punched, kicked and tore at each other. (source)

This isn’t just a few people yelling and chanting. This is outright fighting – physical violence.

Fighting in the streets pic.twitter.com/8EnuhN5V4q

— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) August 22, 2020

Conservative rioters left the area in the afternoon, but the remaining rioters continued to become increasingly violent into the night until teargas was released to disperse crowds.

The police did not declare an event because they “didn’t have the resources to handle one.”

In a press release distributed Saturday afternoon, Portland police said its officers did not intervene to stop the fighting because those involved “willingly” engaged, its forces were stretched too thin from policing 80+ nights of protests, and the bureau didn’t feel the clashes would last that long.

“Each skirmish appeared to involve willing participants and the events were not enduring in time, so officers were not deployed to intervene,” the release states. (source)

On Sunday night, the NY Post reported that rioters set fire to a police precinct.

Black Lives Matter militants set fire to a police station in Portland Sunday night during yet another night of violence in the Oregon city.

The march on the Portland Police Bureau’s north precinct had already been declared an unlawful assembly as police say they were pelted with “rocks and bottles” and had “powerful green lasers” pointed at them.

But a mob of at least 300 continued to advance despite repeated warnings by police — and lit an awning on the precinct ablaze… (source)

The fire was extinguished without injuries.

A week ago, a man was seriously injured when he was pulled from his vehicle and brutally attacked during an “otherwise peaceful demonstration.”

A crowd gathered around him and repeatedly punched and kicked him in the head until he was bloody.

Witnesses told police the man had been helping a transgender female who had an item of hers stolen, and he was dragged out of the car and beat by nine or 10 people. When police arrived the man was unconscious.

Portland police said their response to the assault was “complicated by a hostile group.” (source)

Shockingly, only one person has been charged in the attack, 25-year-old Marquise Love.

It’s important to note that Portland’s new district attorney, Mike Schmidt, has refused to prosecute protesters that commit criminal acts. The New York Times reports that since he took office on August 1 of this year, he has dismissed charges against half of the more than 600 people who have been arrested for crimes like interfering with the police, disorderly conduct and trespassing. Charges that involve assaulting officers will “require closer scrutiny, with prosecutors taking into account in filing charges whether the police fired tear gas into crowds.”

Unsurprisingly, local law enforcement believes that Schmidt’s policies are making matters worse.

Mr. Schmidt said Portland police leaders told him that they were concerned the directive would lead to more police injuries, though he said nothing prevented officers from making lawful arrests they deemed necessary. (The Portland police chief, Chuck Lovell, said the force “will continue to do the job the community expects of us.”)

The sheriff, Mike Reese, warned Mr. Schmidt in an email that some protesters were bent on “starting fires, damaging property and assaulting police, community members,” adding, “They may feel even more emboldened if there is a public statement that appears to minimize their activities.” In response to one of the sheriff’s concerns, Mr. Schmidt said he revised the policy to greenlight prosecutions for rioting in cases where a defendant was accused of serious offenses.

The Oregon State Police also took a parting shot at Mr. Schmidt as troopers pulled back after a two-week deployment at the protests this month, saying they preferred to put resources in “counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority.” (source)

The violence in Portland shows no sign of relenting.

Seattle, Washington … (continues)

Ammo.com: Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW — Militia Groups

This article comes from the library/writings at Ammo.com, Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America’s Domestic Viet Cong. It’s a bit of a longer article that goes into the different generations of warfare, asymmetrical warfare, and where the US militia fits in.

“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”

Col. Jeff Cooper

When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government – inevitably someone points out the stark difference in firepower between a guerilla uprising in the United States and the United States government itself.

This is not a trivial observation. The U.S. government spends more on the military than the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. Plus, the potential of a tyrannical government is arguably upon us – with the federal government spying on its own citizens, militarizing local police departments with equipment and tactics from the War on Terror, and repeatedly searching Americans, which desensitizes them to this invasive process.

There is much historical precedent, however, for guerilla uprisings defeating more powerful enemies. For instance, the Cold War saw both superpowers brought to their knees by rural farmers – for the Soviets, their adventure in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and for the United States, the Vietnam War against the Viet Cong.

In both cases, nuclear weapons could have been used against the guerilla uprising, but were not. Even assuming the use of nuclear weapons from the position of total desperation, it’s hard to imagine they would have made much of a difference in the final outcome of either conflict. Unlike the invading armies, the local resistance enjoyed both broad-based support as well as knowledge of the local terrain.

Now imagine such a scenario in the United States. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so. From Red Dawn to James Wesley, Rawles’ Patriots series, there is a relatively long-standing tradition of American survival literature about the hoi polloi resisting the tyranny of big government, either before or after a collapse.

For the purposes of this article, consider what a domestic American terrorist or freedom fighter (after all, the label is in the eye of the beholder) organization based on the militia movement would look like in open revolt against the United States government. In the spirit of levity, we’ll call them the “Hillbilly Viet Cong.” They would most likely find their largest numbers in Appalachia, but don’t discount their power in the American Redoubt, or the more sparsely populated areas of the American Southwest, including rural Texas.

Here we have tens of thousands of Americans armed to the teeth with combat experience, deep family ties to both the police and the military, extensive knowledge of the local geography, and, in many cases, survivalist training. Even where they are not trained, militant and active, they enjoy broad support among those who own a lot of guns and grow a lot of food.

On the other side, you have the unwieldy Baby Huey of the rump U.S. government’s military, with some snarky BuzzFeed editorials serving as propaganda.

Could the Hillbilly Viet Cong take down the USG? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s difficult to imagine that the USG could take them down.

Indeed, even with a number of nasty little toys on the side of the federal government, we live in an age of a technologically levelled playing field. This is true even when it comes to instruments of warfare. While the USG has nuclear weapons, it’s worth remembering that a pound of C4 strapped to a cheap and readily available commercial-grade drone is going to break a lot of dishes.

This sort of guerilla insurgency has a name: It’s called fourth-generational warfare (4GW), and you might be surprised to learn that you already live in this world.

Table of Contents

What Are the First Three Generations of Warfare?

First-Generation Warfare

Second-Generation Warfare

Third-Generation Warfare

What Is Fourth-Generation Warfare?

What Is the Difference Between 4GW and Asymmetrical Warfare?

John Boyd, Chuck Spinney, and 4GW

Where Is 4GW Happening Today?

Is 4GW Coming to the Developed World?

4GW: The European Model

4GW: The American Model

4GW in America: The Battle of Athens

The Militia Movement and 4GW

Skills Required for 4GW

What Are the First Three Generations of Warfare?

To understand how 4GW is a new and improved form of war, we first need to explain what the first three generations of warfare were:

First-Generation Warfare

The first generation (1GW) is basically what you would have seen in the movie 300. The hallmarks of this generation of warfare are armies from two different state actors leveraging line-and-column tactics and wearing uniforms to distinguish between themselves.

This generation is not entirely without subterfuge. For example, counterfeit currency was used to devalue the money supply during the 1GW Napoleonic Wars. Other examples of 1GW conflicts include the English Civil War and the American Revolutionary War.

Second-Generation Warfare

The second generation (2GW) comes with the advent of rifling and breech-loaded weapons. As students of military history know, the invention of rifling was one of the reasons that the United States Civil War was so bloody. This meant that firearms that were once mostly for show after 100 feet or so, were now deadly weapons – and tactics did not immediately evolve.

But evolve they did. Many things we take for granted as being just part of warfare – such as camouflage, artillery, and reconnaissance – are defining features of 2GW. The American Civil War is probably the first 2GW conflict. Others include the First World War, the Spanish Civil War and, much more recently, the Iran-Iraq War. The United States military coined this phrase in 1989.

Third-Generation Warfare

This phase of warfare, also known a 3GW, is the late modern version of warfare, where speed and stealth play a much bigger role. Weapons and tactics alone are less important. Instead, military units seek to find ways to outmaneuver one another before – or even instead of – meeting on the battlefield.

The era of 3GW was initiated with the Blitzkrieg, which marked the decisive end to cavalry and replaced it with tank and helicopter warfare. Junior officers were given more leeway to give orders. The Second World War was the first 3GW conflict, with the Korean, Vietnam and both Iraq Wars becoming further examples of this style of fighting.

What Is Fourth-Generation Warfare?

The most direct way of discussing 4GW is to say that it describes any war between a state actor and a non-state actor. This is also known as asymmetrical warfare, but it’s not the only difference between 4GW and other, earlier forms of conflict. Asymmetrical warfare does, to be sure, blur the lines between combatants and civilians. This is in part what made the Bush-era “war on terror” so difficult and complicated: The war was against a set of ideas rather than a nation or even an extra-national army.

Continue reading “Ammo.com: Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW — Militia Groups” →

American Partisan: Logistics – Ammo in Guerrilla Groups

NC Scout at American Partisan writes about the importance of logistics in guerrilla conflicts in A Challenge of Logistics: Ammo in Guerrilla Groups.

Almost as predictable as the rising of the sun is the issues of keeping a guerrilla group supplied. In every historical account I’ve read and personal encounters training and patrolling with the Kurdish Peshmerga and even the Afghan Border Police (which is little more than a government sanctioned militia) the number one issue boils down to logistics. In all cases, its not even having a combat load of ammunition for a patrol- they barely have ammo to even train, much less sustain a firefight for long. Such is life. Today many are finding themselves in a similar situation. Ammo, for the most part, is short and expensive where you can find it. The guns don’t seem to be the problem- 5.56 and 9mm are the new 22 Long from the era of Obama. Taking that into account, how many here in the States actually have a realistic picture of how much equipment it’ll take to remain supplied for any amount of time?

I’ve always had a fascination with Cold War era conflicts- partly because I’ve known many who were involved in them and still look to the ones alive for advice, but also because there’s so many lessons that inherently go overlooked in terms of the realities and challenges a guerrilla force will face. Reality, always, is far different from one’s expectations and a far cry from the fantasies many espouse.

The Cuban Revolution is a great example. Early on, the primary challenge that the various factions faced was not finding motivated people but establishing a standard for arms and ammunition, followed very closely by a coherent training plan to evolve the motivated would-be guerrillas from randomly successful fighters against a far superior military force to a force to be feared using the Escambray mountain range as a natural base of operations.

Such is the interesting story of Frank Sturgis in Cuba. It was Sturgis, a WWII Marine Raider, who was largely responsible for first recognizing these needs then starting his own airlift to supply them with surplus WWII arms and ammunition. The M1 Carbine became a very popular arm for the tight jungle terrain and became the weapon of choice among many. It was light and fast, had decent stopping power within the relatively close distances jungle fighting entails (an opinion shared by Philippine Guerrillas a decade earlier) Sturgis used his lessons learned fighting in the Pacific in WWII to make the guerrilla band a force to be reckoned with, later being instrumental in the training of Assault Brigade 2506 that landed at the Bay of Pigs and then continuing to train the survivors until just before he died in the 1990s. And somewhere in that timeline he found himself breaking into Watergate. But the larger point to be made is that without outside support, the Cuban Revolution would have been crushed- a reality that forced them to work with outside sources that were often cagey at best.

Taking that lesson into account, there’s a few lessons that bear noting, and have repeated themselves over time. The first is having a standard weapon that is both easily supplied, repaired, and simple to teach others to use. Many times, several of us have probably heard the questions “why do you have more than one of those? You can only shoot one…” and while that last bit might be true, it neglects the reality of the need to arm others. We don’t exist in free space, and the notion of ‘I’m just going to bug out to my retreat and they’ll leave me alone!’ is a pipe dream. Further, the ability to arm others infers control and inherent authority. I armed you, you work for me. If there is no authority, there is no cohesion.

You need one standard of ammunition and magazines. Having a multitude of random specialty calibers or proprietary magazines for those weapons means that you’ve added a layer of complications to your logistics plan that will at best cause that weapon to be an expensive club later on down the road. Further, a guerrilla’s personal choice of weapon is more often dictated by what ammo he can source rather than what he would like. Last, and this is one that my personal experience mirrors, is that the so-called ‘battlefield pickup’ is not a reliable plan to resupply your group. That doesn’t mean it won’t be viable in some instances, but the reality of combat is that in fluid and volatile conditions, you don’t always have time to pick up weapons and supplies off your adversaries alone. Despite the popular internet tropes in survival circles, there won’t just be guns laying around everywhere. I’ve operated in two different warzones, and aside from a few inert shells here and there, I didn’t see any weapons laying around and not in the hands of people ready to use them.

Finding yourself as the potential leader of a guerrilla band, one of your principle challenges then becomes keeping a healthy stockpile of munitions to both accomplish your needs in combat while recognizing your training goals. It would be remiss to point out that ammo is currently experiencing a major shortage in the US from the very real looming threat of domestic instability. The two most common calibers in the US, 9mm and 5.56, are nearly non-existent and expensive where found. On the other hand, 7.62×39 can still be found with minimal price gouging. And while AK prices are higher than in years past, the weapon is still not extremely expensive to get into. The learning curve on the AK, at least from my own perspective, is far shorter to build a competent shooter, especially within its intended range and role.

Whatever the future holds, the reality is that no matter how much ammunition you have today, you really don’t have enough for a potential future. The world is changing rapidly and with it, the United States. Look at where we are today compared to just six months ago…let alone four years…and gasp- two decades. Let it be a sober reminder of the urgency of the times.

Global Security: Logistics for Low Intensity Conflict

US Army: Logistical Considerations for Low Intensity Conflict (PDF 1.1MB)

US Army: Guerrilla Logistics research thesis (PDF)

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZqzgKdnbc

The Organic Prepper: Unconventional Warfare in the US

Political warfare location within four implements of power

Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper writes about the use of unconventional warfare techniques with the US recently in her article There’s an Actual Playbook for Everything Happening Right Now and the US Wrote It. But Who Is Using It Against Us? Some of this echoes themes written of by intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer on low intensity conflict in the US, as you may have seen from articles of his that we’ve posted to this site.

While it might seem like everything that is happening is just chaotically bouncing from one shocking event to the next, that assessment couldn’t be further from the truth. There’s a playbook – a literal playbook – and we’re being manipulated toward the endgame that does not benefit the American people.

What’s the endgame?

Spoiler alert.

It’s widespread guerrilla actions and the destabilization of our country.

What’s this playbook?

The playbook I’m referring to in this article is the US Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Manual from 2010. These were methods that the United States military employed against Libya.

The intent of U.S. UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives. Historically, the military concept for the employment of UW was primarily in support of resistance movements during general-war scenarios. While this concept remains valid, the operational environment since the end of World War II has increasingly required U.S. forces to conduct UW in scenarios short of general war (limited war).

Enabling a resistance movement or insurgency entails the development of an underground and guerrilla forces, as well as supporting auxiliaries for each of these elements. Resistance movements or insurgencies always have an underground element. The armed component of these groups is the guerrilla force and is only present if the resistance transitions to conflict. The combined effects of two interrelated lines of effort largely generate the end result of a UW campaign. The efforts are armed conflict and subversion. Forces conduct armed conflict, normally in the form of guerrilla warfare, against the security apparatus of the host nation (HN) or occupying military. Conflict also includes operations that attack and degrade enemy morale, organizational cohesion, and operational effectiveness and separate the enemy from the population. Over time, these attacks degrade the ability of the HN or occupying military to project military power and exert control over the population. Subversion undermines the power of the government or occupying element by portraying it as incapable of effective governance to the population. (source)

And now this guideline is very clearly being used against the United States. It started years back, but recently, we’ve watched things escalate rather dramatically.

Here’s the guideline.

Consider this a pyramid that begins at the bottom and builds to the apex. This all begins with underground activities and the fanning of legitimate flames, like Selco mentioned in his article about defunding the police.

Does that stuff look familiar? It should because we’re more than three-quarters of the way through this escalation.

The causes are not unjust.

The thing that makes this technique so effective is that the causes themselves are not unjust. They are things that would rightly anger any reasonable, compassionate human being.

Most white people don’t want to see people of other races suffer indignities and violence based on the color of their skin. (I say “most” because there are always outliers and extremists.) Most Americans in general do not want to see police brutality. They don’t want to see families split up or people imprisoned for decades for victimless crimes.

Let me be perfectly clear when I say that it is not unreasonable or wrong to be outraged and want things to change. I hate some of the things I’ve seen our government and police officers do and have written about these misdeeds for years.

But this article isn’t about whether or not our anger is justified. It is an assessment of a playbook.

All of this outrage over injustice forms the foundation of something that can be used against us. The agitation has been building up for years – far longer than President Trump has been in office – so as much as people love to hate him, he isn’t the cause of all this. But he’s certainly not making things go any more smoothly.

An early timeline

Everything I’m writing about today is about how our government in the past has encouraged a resistance in other countries, and how a resistance is being nurtured here in the United States right now.

So what does it take to cause people to be angry enough to resist?

Resistance generally begins with the desire of individuals to remove intolerable conditions imposed by an unpopular regime or occupying power. Feelings of opposition toward the governing authority and hatred of existing conditions that conflict with the individual’s values, interests, aspirations, and way of life spread from the individual to his family, close friends, and neighbors. As a result, an entire community may possess an obsessive hatred for the established authority. Initially, this hatred will manifest as sporadic, spontaneous nonviolent and violent acts of resistance by the people toward authority. As the discontent grows, natural leaders, such as former military personnel, clergymen, local office holders, and neighborhood representatives, emerge to channel this discontent into organized resistance that promotes its growth. The population must believe they have nothing to lose, or more to gain. (source)

There can be more than one resistance going on at a time, too. Currently, everything that is in the news is about the resistance that has sprung up over the death of George Floyd. A few months ago, it was about the sanctuary cities in Virginia standing up against state legislators.

Resistance organizations have been around for years: Black Lives Matter, the NRA, Antifa, the Boogaloo movement, the Black Bloc, the Gun Owners of America. I’m just listing off examples of organizations here, not passing judgment whether they’re good or bad. I’ll bet that most people who join do so because of their own deeply held beliefs. They sincerely feel they’re doing the right thing and have the best of intentions.

But then there are the other people who join – the infiltrators – and they take these kinds of organizations to dark places. Much has been written about the involvement of the Communist Party, neo-Nazis, George Soros, and white supremacists in various groups. And while some of it may be the stuff of legends and propaganda, a lot of it is very likely to be true…(continues)

Forward Observer: Where Do We Go from Here? Riot Edition

Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer discusses riots and low intensity conflict in Where to we go from here?

Are these protests and riots the beginning of something larger in our country’s low intensity conflict? I’m going to try to answer that question here in a few points…

First, let’s start with a simple fact: These riots are what we consider “low intensity conflict,” which exists below the threshold of conventional war (tanks and bombers) but above routine, peaceful competition. This is a gray zone between the black and white of war where we see both violent and nonviolent activity that fails to meet the definition of declared war.

The United States is in a low intensity conflict and has been since at least 2016, if not 2008.

Second, these riots are a continuation of a broader conflict. While many were rather pure in their desire to protest the death of George Floyd, there were other elements using the opportunity to take other action.

Those who committed violence over the past several days can be separated into four categories.

1. Opportunistic actors who sought personal gain.

2. Social conflict actors who expressed their anger over the death of George Floyd and used violence as a means to coerce the political class into making desired changes.

3. Class conflict actors who committed acts of violence in their class struggle against the capitalist system. As one professor recently put it, “[L]ooting is an expression of power.”

4. And, yes, I’ve seen plenty of criticism over some of law enforcement’s heavy handed tactics. This violence should not go unnoticed, because police forces are a part of this conflict, too.

(I’ve also seen some claims that “white supremacists” were in some way responsible for the violent rioting, which comes as no surprise when one considers the outlets pushing that narrative. Pressed on that claim, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said over the weekend that “nobody really knows” the political motivations behind the violence. It didn’t stop him from making that claim prior to the interview. I’ll wager a guess: those responsible for the violence weren’t doing it on behalf of white supremacy.)

Third, it’s important to note the development of soft power. Some on the Right minimize the capability of the Far Left because the Far Left is largely unarmed. This is a mistake.

Aside from hard power — the ability to project force — there’s soft power, which exists on the moral and information plane of conflict.

Over the weekend, we saw much of mainstream media excuse the behavior of the rioters and deflect responsibility for what’s happening.

CNN’s Don Lemon complained on his show that America’s power class weren’t coming to the defense of the protestors and rioters.

“Why aren’t they helping these young people? These young people are out there standing on a platform at the edge of an abyss by themselves… Get on television or do something and help these young people instead of sitting in your mansions and doing nothing. And have some moral courage and stop worrying about your reputation and your brand,” Lemon begged.

That’s soft power. Money and funding, influence, moral support and framing the moral authority — these are the elements that enable hard power. And Don Lemon pleaded with celebrities and the donor class to help develop this soft power.

Finally — let’s look at where we could go from here because the worst might still be ahead for at least two reasons.

First, over the past few days, I’ve seen numerous examples of protestors and rioters saying they want to go to the suburbs next.

With the exception of the one video that was linked to the Drudge Report, the evidence has been on social media, with organizers and influencers putting out these suggestions to those who want to continue the protest outside of urban areas.

I read most of these comments with some skepticism, but I’m completely open to the possibility that protests and violence do migrate in some instances. That would be a mistake, in my opinion.

Today (Sunday), Attorney General Bill Barr published a press release in which he warned that the Department of Justice and the states will “reestablish law and order” through a large scale presence of police and the National Guard.

Barr also threatened that federal law enforcement is out for “violent radical agitators,” and labeled the antifascists as engaging in acts of domestic terrorism. The Department of Justice is working with all 56 regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) to facilitate this action.

The risk in either of these cases is that violence is escalated.

For one, some suburbs might make easy targets in the beginning, but just as we saw militias forming to protect businesses, the suburbs are likely to become harder targets for would-be rioters and looters. If it develops, this scenario obviously brings a likelihood of violence.

And two, law enforcement actions, to include arrests or raids on the homes of “violent radical agitators,” are going to aid the argument that the United States has descended into fascism. That could spark more protests and more unrest.

Tag: low intensity conflict

Forward Observer: Our Gray Zone Future

Forward Observer: One Major Left Wing Advantage Over the Right

Rutherford Institute: Enemies of the Deep State – The Government’s War on Domestic Terrorism Is a Trap

Forward Observer: Early Warning for Thursday, Jan. 28, 2021

Forward Observer: January’s Unrestricted Warfare

Breitbart: Live Updates U.S. Capitol Descends into Chaos on Day of Electoral College Certification

Forward Observer: 2021 – The Future of Low Intensity Conflict

Forward Observer: Low Intensity Conflict & the Fourth Industrial Revolution

American Partisan: Low Intensity Conflict SitRep

Organic Prepper: Battle Zones Erupting Across America

Kenosha, Wisconsin

Denver, Colorado

Portland, Oregon

Seattle, Washington … (continues)

Ammo.com: Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW — Militia Groups

What Are the First Three Generations of Warfare?

First-Generation Warfare

Second-Generation Warfare

Third-Generation Warfare

What Is Fourth-Generation Warfare?

American Partisan: Logistics – Ammo in Guerrilla Groups

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

The Organic Prepper: Unconventional Warfare in the US

What’s this playbook?

Here’s the guideline.

The causes are not unjust.

An early timeline

Forward Observer: Where Do We Go from Here? Riot Edition