Stop Falling for Counterinsurgency Tactics

It worked in Algeria and it works in Alabama

‘You’re ZOG’ ‘FEDBAIT’ ‘Crypto jew!’ ‘Groyper fag’ ‘BAP Nigger’ or any other slightly more creative insult has been tossed at just about anyone with an ounce of influence on the right. Sometimes, it almost feels coordinated. Someone gets a bit of traction and they’re immediately labeled a plant. Sometimes those rising stars confirm it too and immediately use their influence to turn on popular voices. You're not alone in feeling unease about the turbulent, autophagous impulses within this ecosystem.

You probably had a friend who majored in ‘security studies’ or wanted to be the next great CIA agent. They halfheartedly learned Arabic, Chinese, or Farsi and took a bunch of poli sci classes. If they went to a good school, they also may have taken some classes on well… bluntly put… suppression of dissidents. Every book you read in these classes always has the context of ‘stopping terrorists’ and COIN (acronym for counterinsurgency) but it doesn’t take a genius to see the mission creep. We were snooping around in Afghan backyards before our own. It is well known that the tactics and tools employed in GWOT have become the playbook to counter ‘dissidents,’ yet we often don’t realize WE are the targets.

Simply put, you’re falling for all the tactics we use (and don’t hide). Kash Patel isn’t hyper based or ‘one of our guys.’ The FBI, CIA, and every other institution is still stocked with people holding an agenda to destroy any threat to the neoliberal, globalist status quo. Below I’ll tell you what these tactics are, how they developed, and exactly how you’re falling for them. Then, some optimism.

Friedrich Nietzsche in Human, All Too Human (Aphorism 463): There are political and social dreamers who ardently and eloquently call for the overthrow of all order, in the belief that proudest fane of beautiful humanity will then rear itself immediately, almost of its own accord.

The Algerian War

Algeria did not merely represent a colonial outpost to the French; Algeria was a full fledged state with voting power. The pied noirs (ethnic French born there) made up a large population (especially along the coast) and France had no intention of ever abandoning it. Decolonial pressure, nascent Islamism, and a French state weakened by war set the stage for a full scale uprising by the Arabs and Berbers.

Galula's post-war work became the Bible for all COIN operations. Ironically, it comes from a force that ultimately lost.

The French strategy had four key components:

1. Gather intelligence (lots of it) in order to control the population effectively. The population is the CG (center of gravity) and makes or breaks the war.

2. Use this intelligence to ‘win hearts and minds.’ Govern effectively and provide a clear alternative to disorder. This was done much better by the British in the Malaysian Emergency than by the French in Algeria or Vietnam.

3. Isolate your enemies. Physically, socially, and economically keep the insurgents isolated from the populace and, more importantly, from each other.

4. Create infighting. Play up any and all hypocrisies. Use informants and make it known to insurgents that any of their compatriots might betray them. Play up potential ‘outside influence’ (the communists/Soviets in this case) to discredit the indigeneity of the movement.

For our purposes, we are focused on the last two points as they are still utilized in a non-kinetic environment. The NSA already has the first point locked down and the second… well I don’t think anyone needs to worry that a Western government will govern effectively. The last two play out every day on twitter.

Counterinsurgency Tactics and their Journey Home

As the United States increasingly transitioned its foreign policy to that of Empire, it developed a more robust strategy to counter insurgent movements in occupied territories. The primary example is Iraq. This led to a complete retooling of the military to that of a counterinsurgent occupation force. This led to the development of new doctrine, but more importantly it bred a host of adjacent and supporting assets to identify, isolate, and destroy enemies.

Corporate graph making is a favorite past time of the military.

The coalition forces learned from the French and put many of Galula’s ideas into formal doctrine. In The U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the dismantlement of groups from within is highlighted.

Internal Divisions 1−102: Counterinsurgents remain alert for signs of divisions within an insurgent movement. A series of successes by counterinsurgents or errors by insurgent leaders can cause some insurgents to question their cause or challenge their leaders. In addition, relations within an insurgency do not remain harmonious when factions form to vie for power. Rifts between insurgent leaders, if identified, can be exploited. Offering amnesty or a seemingly generous compromise can also cause divisions within an insurgency and present opportunities to split or weaken it.

Informants 1−104: Nothing is more demoralizing to insurgents than realizing that people inside their movement or trusted supporters among the public are deserting or providing information to government authorities. Counterinsurgents may attract deserters or informants by arousing fear of prosecution or by offering rewards

Why does this matter to us? Because these tactics were brought home to the US. Initially used to suppress internal Islamist threats, they now are utilized to crush anyone who poses a threat to the status quo. In the book, The Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War with Its Own Citizens, Bernard Harcourt lays out a long list of examples of how the processes and practices used to defeat insurgents has been implemented in the United States, particularly in the increasingly militarized police forces. Look across the pond, and you’ll see clearly that the Brits have waged a wave of repression that echoed operations in Iraq in 2006. Leftists, who didn’t realize the ruling powers were actually in support of them, have written detailed works on how the government breaks up movements from within.

The NSA built massive centers to house data in the deserts of Utah for a reason. The feds utilize the 4 step process against their own citizens. They gather intelligence through surveillance, they selectively release this information to discredit enemies and bolster their own position (this is done through informal channels or through formal FBI raids), they isolate dissidents on the internet through bans/censorship and keep people in line in the workforce via debanking and threats of job loss, and finally they actively support any and all infighting especially when it involves taking down other people and not true debate. You are not immune.

CaptiveDreamer, Nick Fuentes, and RW Sabotage

At the risk of giving into exactly what I’ve described, let me say this up front. Some charlatans probably are assets. A great many more are ‘useful idiots,’ ie they are pumped up by the powers that be but are not actually receiving orders. Candace Owens is not getting daily taskers from Langley to sow discord, sorry to break it to you. They are, however, assisting in points 3 and 4 of this strategy.

The two names above are on opposite factions but each exemplify the infighting that regimes savor. CaptiveDreamer is the guy who broke the story of the Haitians terrorizing Ohio. He also does a lot of good translations of German works from the 20th century. Again, this is a guy I agree with directionally, but his disposition concerns me. Recently he doxxed some guy called ‘Basilian Thought’ by posting his public information and got him fired. Granted, I know nothing about this dude but he seemed to be directionally RW even if flawed. This tends to be a pattern, attacking and belittling those he gets into spats with, especially after being very publicly doxxed himself. My concern is that his actions prevent someone like him from coming again. Maybe there is another huge issue we’re missing that someone has thoroughly researched, but maybe that someone has a family, a 401k, and a security clearance they can’t afford to lose. Seeing those on his own side dox others for ideological impurities is just another reason to hide, another reason to let the regime march on. And that’s exactly what the regime wants, the costs and risk of opposing the liberal order to be so high that no one of any means will think about it. Doxxing the anons on your side plays right into the counterinsurgent playbook, it isolates us further.

Critiques of allies are useless without real alternatives.

On the other hand we have Nick Fuentes who everyone has extremely strong opinions about. I’ll get it out of the way now and say at best I think he’s a doom prophet who capitalizes off selling the sky falling and at worst he’s been blackmailed and is controlled opposition. Whatever his motivations are, there is some good that comes from him. A voice that is never satisfied with progress made by Trump is not a bad thing inherently. Pressure to go further is always needed and he seems to be the loudest voice pushing for more deportations and more direct action. Where things get froggy is the actual manner in which he critiques. Everything is ‘jewish’ or done for Israel. Again, I think criticizing the actual support of Israel by Trump is good but when the attacks become ‘ICE is just Israeli police in America’ or ‘My opponents are controlled by Israel’ you’re just playing into the 4th point mentioned and claiming outside interference to discredit opponents. A side note, the accelerationist views are flat out retarded by the way; South Africa still has white guilt libtards who live behind walls with security guards (I’ve met several in my life personally). The Fuentes problem is that every single good action is somehow critiqued as backwards. Its good for him and brings attention but its bad for everyone else. Not only does it distract from real gains, it leads to twitter becoming a cesspit of infighting instead of focusing on fixing the problem. It also breeds further inaction. If nothing ever matters and everything is controlled by Zog then why even get off your couch? Why fight a losing battle? I don’t think this is his intention but it allows people with losing mentalities to give in to their worst impulses and justify inaction.

Bad faith attacks are the norm historically unfortunately. Criticism can be healthy though and debate refines ideologies. What does not help are ad hominem attacks on people you directionally agree with. Carl Schmitt is right, we need to think friend-enemy, especially under tyrannical occupation. I’ll give you an example. I like BAP a lot, I’ve read both books and directionally agree that vitalism and erudite strength are good. He’s cogent, has a vision, and a call to action for the future. I also recognize he needs to put down his copy of the Antichrist and understand that the same people he calls on are not going to abandon their faith in some vain faux-hellenistic transformation into the ubermensch. When I agree, I retweet him with a thoughtful comment. When I disagree, I tell him to look at the real India and not Schopenhauer’s fantasy. I think my writing above does this too, I personally really do not like Fuentes but I can acknowledge the good that comes from him. I know asking most people to use logic is far too ambitious, I am just telling you that this internal sniping of potential allies is exactly what the regime wants you to do (and what it actively foments).

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Monroe (Paris, 1785): A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.

How We Win

Simply put, we must foster an attitude of construction. Every piece of discourse should be pushing us toward our ideal end state. Debates are healthy, but seeing the ‘intellectual’ leaders bogged down in petty feuds is not just counterproductive, its a strategy of the corporate, liberal security complex to stop real revitalization from ever occurring. I’m not an idiot, I know our basest instincts are to gossip and engage in petty behavior. But it does not take the masses adopting a new approach to fix the problem, we just need the leaders to understand Schmitt’s distinction. Yes, there is the inevitable vying for power but I would rather have those fights without a boot on my throat than all drown in a sinking boat together. If nothing else, awareness of these tactics might make you think twice before your ‘epic takedown’ post.

United, we are far more powerful to defeat the suicidal forces of the Western ruling class than we realize. Concerted action by a small group of individuals can topple empires. In a post-Foucault world where no one believes anything, the organized group who does can achieve greatness. France lost Algeria, America lost Iraq and Afghanistan, and no post cold-war Western government has successfully quelled real unrest. The crown is in the gutter for whoever can unite these disparate voices.

Ernst Jünger says it best in the passage below. We are capable of far more than we can imagine and strike much more fear into tyrants than we realize.

Ernst Jünger in The Forest Passage: Were the great masses as transparent, as aligned in their atoms as the propaganda claims, then no more police would be necessary than a shepherd needs dogs for his flock of sheep. But that is not the case, there are wolves hiding in the gray flock; that is, characters who still know what freedom is. Moreover, these wolves are not only strong in themselves; there is also the danger that one fine morning they will transmit their characteristics to the masses, so that the flock turns into a pack. This is the ruler’s nightmare.