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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer has his own take on the current US political situation. Unlike NC Scout’s take which we posted yesterday, Sam Culper doesn’t see two competing Presidents come January, but he does see low intensity conflict worsening.
It’s been a while since I sent out a Dispatch, so I wanted to give everyone an update on how I see things now and where we’re headed next.
First, the Most Dangerous Course of Action didn’t materialize. Although there have been numerous skirmishes between Trump supporters and Leftist groups, we saw nothing on the level of the popular revolution that was being fomented in response to a Trump win.
I have concerns over how the bean counting played out. If signature matching requirements were enforced, then we might be looking at a second term for President Trump. The fact that it didn’t happen in key states is a testament to the politicization of “free and fair” elections; a condition which will hang over the future.
There’s some talk about President Trump “crossing the Rubicon” to stay in office. I don’t think that’s going to happen, and at this point the odds don’t favor Trump being president after 20 January 2021, despite ongoing and adamant prognostications to the contrary.
So where does that leave us? Is the era of low intensity conflict over?
No. In fact, I think we’re just getting started. Here are three reasons.
1. Given what we know about Biden/Harris policies, continued political, social, and economic turmoil is likely. At a minimum, the Right will pick up where they left off under Obama. There have already been a few calls for secession. Throw in the possibility that Democrats take a Senate majority in Georgia’s special election next month, and calls for secession may again boil into movements. A resurgence of militia and Three Percent activity, some of which died down after Trump was elected, is likely to return. In short, a Biden administration will be no better than a third Obama term, and could be significantly worse, especially on gun control policies and changing ATF regulations.
2. The Biden victory emboldened the Leftist cultural revolution. With at least five new socialist members of Congress, the Far Left political insurgency will expand, and the march through commercial and social institutions will accelerate. The American identity will continue to change, as “New America” — racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse; socially progressive; and a mix of economically social-capitalist or socialist — continues to redefine the country away from predominantly European, Christian, and capitalist “Old America”. We’ll see every attempt to permanently redefine “fundamental American values” as the cultural revolution cements this new national identity. We’ve seen this kind of tectonic shift in American society three times before: the lead up to the American Revolution, the lead up to the Civil War, and during the Civil Rights Era. In two of the three instances, tectonic shifts in society led to earthquakes of armed conflict. We’re experiencing a fourth shift right now, which is likely to last through the decade.
3. Lastly, anarchist, socialist, and communist revolutionary groups proliferated under the Trump administration. The number and membership of armed Leftist groups has grown exponentially over the past four years, as have unarmed activist groups. We saw this most recently during the Shutdown D.C. effort, whose organizers were planning to stage a people’s revolution against President Trump’s second term. Meanwhile, armed Leftist groups have made significant advancements in their capabilities. Just a few years ago, we’d see pictures of Leftists armed with a shotgun or Grandpa’s bolt-action rifle. Today, we’re seeing AR-15s with appropriate optics, IFAKs, body armor, radios, and other equipment. Record purchases of firearms and ammunition is no longer being driven only by the Right. There’s also been a number of military veterans, to include former special operations soldiers, joining armed Leftist groups as instructors, mentors, and/or active participants. While the number and size of armed Leftist groups remains relatively small compared to armed Right Wing groups, the growth and level of advancement in just a few years is worth nothing. Most importantly, though, Leftist groups have been building the intelligence, communications, and logistics networks required for sustained conflict. Developing networks takes time and expertise, and Leftist groups are currently far outpacing the Right in this realm. This would become a strategic advantage if the current low intensity conflict were to heat up.
For these three reasons, I see low intensity conflict continuing well into this decade. And we haven’t gotten into my economic expectations, which will drive class conflict and likely lead to substantial changes in the financial environment and monetary policy. This is going to be a big, important decade for U.S. history.
That’s an incredibly abbreviated version of some of the trends I’m tracking. If you’re concerned about the future, and you want clear, accurate expectations of the future, then subscribe to my Early Warning service. My daily reports save you time because we report only on what matters and what’s happening in the future.
In this audio-only video, intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer talks about a Toronto police action and what it means in an insurgent context as well as how it makes him anticipate further unrest.
Thursday, Oct. 29th, 2020 at 5 p.m. Pacific time, PrepperNet is streaming live on YouTube with guests Sam Culper of Forward Observer, John Jacob Schmidt of Radio Free Redoubt & AmRRON, and Lady Liberty of the Political Church Podcast and Radio Free Redoubt.
Intelligence analyst Sam Culper at Forward Observer sends this short reminder. Forward Observer provides tactical and operational intelligence on the groups driving civil unrest and domestic conflict. They just hired a new analyst to the team and are ramping up production ahead of what they are calling the “Royal Rumble”. If you’re concerned about the country’s slow descent into domestic conflict, and want the ground truth during the upcoming violence and disruption between November and January, then you can join Forward Observer. Subscribe here and get access to Forward Observer’s intelligence reporting.
I’ve followed Professor Peter Turchin for several years. He’s a scientist who studies history and uses models to forecast conflicts.
For the past 10 years, he’s been warning that 2020 would be a turbulent year in American history.
In a recent article co-authored for a think tank, Turchin writes, “The social system that we live in is extremely fragile.”
The domestic conflict has already started, he continues, “[b]ut worse likely lies ahead.” Turchin describes the conflict as “the turbulent twenties”.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise to long time readers. Our Low Intensity Conflict likely started in 2016, and maybe as far back as the 2008 financial crisis.
I started writing my intelligence report on a weekly basis in 2016 because I was very confident that domestic conditions would worsen to the point of armed conflict.
After spending three years in Iraq and Afghanistan as an intelligence NCO and contractor, I knew I had what it took to track a domestic conflict.
There’s one week before the election. I can’t say for certain that we’ll see armed political violence in the coming days, but I’m certain that politically-related killings will continue.
This low intensity conflict is not going to end in November, or December, or January.
This conflict is going to rage for years.
Here at FO, to stay on top of developing conditions, we’re adding regional forums, expanding our daily podcast, and introducing a new line of intelligence products starting in early November.
You won’t be disappointed. But if you are, you can cancel your free 7-day trial anytime you like.
Stay ahead of the curve with our reporting. Subscribe here.
About four years ago when I started this report, I began looking for indications of increasing capabilities among both armed and unarmed Leftist groups. Although it’s rather obvious in hindsight, I hypothesized that as operational support capabilities increased, so would the intensity and volume of their actions.
It was a slow few years, and then boom — George Floyd went viral at the end of May. And Leftist groups have likely made more progress in the past four months than they have in the past four years.
The development is actually impressive. It’s far more than what’s being developed by the Right.
Affinity groups and cellular compartmentalization have long been the preferred method of Leftist organizing, but what’s developed over the summer is far and above what was traditionally included in the doctrine.
One anarchist group in the Pacific Northwest provides the best illustration. In a recent missive, the group outlined how their personnel are organized.
In addition to 4x direct action cells, they had:
1x logistics and transportation cell
2x medical aid cells
1x intelligence cell
This is operational support.
In order to keep direct action cells in the field, some level of support needs to be provided. The direct action cells need food, water, medical supplies, transportation, and information to continue their operations. Absent those, demonstrations become unsustainable and break down.
Historically, direct action cells have been forced into self-funding and self-supply. Over the summer, we’ve seen a concerted effort to develop support classes so that direct action cells can focus on their activities, while being supplied with food and water, medicine, real-time information, and other materials.
In the Army, this is what we called a “tooth to tail ratio”. In other words, how many support personnel are required for every trigger puller? Doctrinally, it’s something like 1:7, or seven support personnel required to field every one combat arms soldier. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was as high as 1:20 or 1:30 (!).
Our team has observed both armed and unarmed Leftist groups develop their own tooth to tail ratio, which is now greater than 1:1. This signifies a boost in operational capacity because the more active support personnel they have, the higher they can push their operational tempo. Portland’s 100 days of rioting would not have happened without the development of operational support capability.
What we’re seeing happen with Leftist activist groups in metro areas across the country is similar to what the Portland insurgency has developed. These indicators are pointing to even more disruptive protests and additional political violence in many cities between November and January.
Earlier this year, I did a re-read of Bill Lind’s 4th Generation Warfare Handbook (4GW) to better understand the framework of our ongoing Low Intensity Conflict.
For those who are new to the term, Low Intensity Conflict is war below the threshold of conventional war (tanks and bombers) but above routine, peaceful competition. America is not at conventional war, but it’s certainty not at peace with itself. This is the gray area of Low Intensity Conflict.
As history shows, technology and human understanding of warfare evolves, so war itself evolves. Not everyone agrees with the “generational” description of warfare, but let’s look quickly at the framework.
According to the theory, Generations 1-3 of warfare focused on the development of conventional warfighting, generally understood as:
1GW: masses of troops meeting on the battlefield in somewhat orderly warfare, such as lines and columns; to
2GW: the inclusion of centralized indirect fire and war by attrition; to
3GW: the inclusion of combined arms (land, air, and sea) and maneuver doctrine.
But something interesting happened in the Fourth Generation: the nation-state lost its monopoly on violence.
War is less and less being fought among conventional militaries and nation-states, and it’s increasingly fought by tribal entities, where both armed and unarmed combatants wage war against an enemy. (Many make the case that this is the original form of warfare, or 0GW, and they’re not wrong.)
Yet, as Lind describes, “All over the world, citizens of states are transferring their primary allegiance away from the state to other entities: to tribes, ethnic groups, religions, gangs, ideologies, and ’causes.’” In 4GW, fighting for one’s “nation” increasingly means fighting for your social tribe, instead of fighting for one’s country.
We’re seeing this right now as the American identity is being redefined and the country becomes more tribal. Small groups, most often based on ideology or race, are trying to reform or replace state power, authority, and legitimacy to benefit their own self-interests. This is the battle between New America and Old America, where “American” is becoming, for many, a secondary or tertiary identity, often behind race and/or ideology.
In 4GW, the military and nation-state has clearly lost the monopoly on warfighting, as 4GW is fought primarily on the Mental (informational) and Moral planes of conflict. The Culture War being fought right now in classrooms, corporations, and media outlets is a great indicator of 4GW, as information operations and high-horse moral pleas have become warfighting techniques to win on the Mental and Moral levels of conflict. (Notice, for instance, the rhetoric re-defining “fundamental American values”.)
Lind makes the case that killing is rarely the preferred way to win a Fourth Generation War, and that winning the Mental and Moral conflict almost always dictates the outcome of the war. In a way, to win in 4GW, you don’t necessarily need to kill your opponent; you need to reshape the information environment and shift the perception of morality so that your opponent (and/or his ideology) becomes unpopular and immoral. Once unpopular and immoral by societal standards, political and social power dries up. At least in theory, that’s how you win at 4GW.
I’ve previously described how 4GW is being fought through community organizing, institution destruction, counter-institution building, economic dislocation, corporate activism, propaganda, terraforming the electorate, and several other ways.
If you’re like me, then you’re pretty far removed from the political and media power centers in D.C. and New York, where much of 4GW originates. But that’s doesn’t mean that 4GW is not being fought in your own area.
My challenge to you is to look locally for ways in which 4GW is being fought.
Are there community organizing efforts in your area to build competing social movements?
Are there subversive political groups trying to destroy local political, cultural, or religious institutions?
Are there subversive political groups trying to build institutions to counter your own political, cultural, or religious institutions?
Is there economic dislocation (targeting income or financial health) against political or cultural opponents?
Are companies or corporations engaging in the cultural and/or political fight?
Are there attempts to expand voting rights to non-citizens, or to shame those who oppose non-citizen voting?
There are a great many more ways that 4GW is being waged, and if we’re completely focused on the national level, then we’re likely to miss 4GW action in our own communities.
TPC interviews intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer to talk about what could happen post-election this November. Interview dated 10/3/2020. Occasional swearing.
I’m starting to see a lot of conservative media activity regarding “the coming coup,” expected to take place between November and January.
As I warned Early Warning subscribers earlier this year, the Left — liberals and Leftists, alike — are planning sustained, mass mobilization protests in the vein of Tahrir Square or the Euromaidan.
Protests at Cairo’s Tahrir Square turned into an Egyptian revolution that toppled Mubarak in 2011. In Kyiv, Ukraine, months-long protests and violence led to the ouster of Yanukovich in 2013.
Meanwhile, mass protests in Belarus are aimed at removing Lukashenko from office right now.
This whole idea of an American Spring or Lafayette Square began back during the Impeachment process, where left wing activists hoped to organize mass mobilization protests that would eventually lead to the toppling of the Trump “regime”.
New York Times columnists Michelle Goldberg and Jamelle Bouie gave the idea widespread coverage, imploring the Left to mobilize. They tried to convince the country that turning out was an imperative to combat fascism and to demand the Senate convict President Trump. Those efforts fizzled, likely because an American Spring was better suited as a course of action saved until the election.
And here we are with just 49 days to go. The current protests, riots, and unrest could well serve as a warm-up for November.
Any illusion of unity in this country is gone. Society is increasingly tribal, most presidential polls are split within five or ten points, the economy is separated between the haves and have-nots. One thing most in the mainstream can agree on is ‘free and fair elections’ that decide the country’s political future.
If we can’t agree on free and fair elections after 2020, then societal, political, and economic conditions are likely to deteriorate, maybe rapidly.
One of the most overlooked threats to a failed or contested election is the value of the dollar.
During ramp up to the COVID crisis, international investors sought refuge in the dollar because that was the safest and highest liquidity place to store their value.
We’ve enjoyed some incredible benefits of having a society and political system that supported a relatively stable dollar. Even with massive devaluation and theft from inflation, the dollar has historically been a refuge during times of international crisis. That won’t always be the case, though.
In a previous email I sent to you, I cited a JP Morgan study that found world reserve currency status lasts between 80-100 years; meaning that the U.S. Dollar is approaching its historical expiration date somewhere between 2024-2054, if the past 400 years of monetary history holds up. A failed or contested election will likely accelerate this timeline.
I received a response to that email, from a dismissive accountant who condescendingly asked where would international investors seek refuge. The same place they always do, and even more so with the dollar under duress: GOLD. We’ve also seen a lot of diversification into cryptocurrency. Globalists have wanted a global currency for decades — this likely becomes their opportunity for the IMF to issue a stable global reserve currency. Even if there’s not a viable alternative right now, the world’s a big place — given weeks or months, international investors can find places to put money. But maybe there’s no good solution and no where to hide. The real risk in that case is that international investors are stuck because no one wants to accept the USD in these trades. What happens to the value of a currency no one wants?
So, it’s serious question time.
If international demand for the dollar does begin to erode as a result of political, social, and economic instability, are the string pullers on the Left and Right willing to risk monetary collapse over election results?
If U.S. markets crash and the dollar does start to lose value rapidly, how much longer will the Left push the unrest? How long would the Right be willing hang on?
This may be considered an outlier scenario, but it’s certainly one risk we’ll face over the next three to six months.
Lower Valley Assembly 