Disclaimer: While I will use military terms and the language of war throughout this article, it should be noted that I am not promoting violence. The terminology of war is frequently used both in politics and the study of political science. War is, after all, “politics by other means,” as the great military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz declared.
People frequently say to me, “Ok Argent, but what is it we do? How do we fight and defeat the Left? Give us some practical guidance.” This is a very good question and one we have largely neglected. While many people have done amazing work on their own, eventually, if we hope for wider success, larger and better organized campaigns must be undertaken. As of the moment we have virtually no ideas of to how to achieve a significant victory, or how to fight a prolonged war against our opponents.
Over the course of these five articles I intend to explore five principles based on extensive research of history’s greatest military leaders and military victories. These principles will be explored both in terms of their historical context, and in terms of how they practically apply to our current situation. My hope is that these principles, and the advice contained within these articles, will help in developing campaigns both at the individual and group levels, and assist people in coming up with practical actions that can contribute to an overall victory.
Introduction: Social Change by a Minority
It is no longer the same situation it was a decade ago where the Left had a virtual monopoly of all types of media, the entirety of the younger generation, and was able to merely shut down all dissent. Things are different now, and while maybe only a percentage point or so of millennials are involved in our sphere (the Alt-Right, Reactosphere, etc.), this is enough to enact major social change.
Revolution is a middle and upper-middle class activity — this has always been the case; virtually all modern revolutions such as the Chinese, Russian, German, Baathist, Islamist, etc. have been led by middle or upper middle-class college-educated professionals (normally lawyers such as Fidel Castro or Vladimir Lenin). These revolutionaries do not represent the common man and for good reason. The common worker or farmer is, generally-speaking, too busy working for a living and feeding his family to take part in such lofty endeavors; he is not well-educated or intelligent enough to care much for them anyways, as his needs are much more practical. The upper class, likewise, is happy with the status quo and sees little reason for change. Thus the bourgeoisie is where virtually all revolutionary activity comes from. It does not even take a large percent of the bourgeoisie to participate in said revolution. In France the bourgeoisie was about eight percent of the population, and yet a fraction of this percent was able to overthrow a thousand-year-old government and establish a completely new form of government. As to what fraction of the bourgeoisie actually supports the revolution, given that many of them (bourgies) had much to lose is unclear. In my high school history class, I was taught that only about one-point-five percent of the population carried out the revolution. Other sources say around thee percent, and still others say five — numbers are hard to get given the chaos of the times, and the lack of public opinion polls. What is more certain is that only about one-point-five percent of colonists were under arms in the Continental army at any given time (not including the French), and yet they succeeded in winning the revolutionary war.
To summarize: a relatively small but well-educated and well-motivated percentage of the population can punch well above its weight and sway public opinion. Even if we at the present appear totally outmatched, this hardly makes failure inevitable.
Principle 1: Preserve Your Men and Materials Above All Else
A good quote relative to this is from Batman Begins where Ra’s al Ghul says to Batman, “Never sacrifice sure footing for a killing blow.” This principle is first because its importance cannot be overstated. A larger force can absorb a defeat or, in many cases, any number of defeats, without its manpower or resources being significantly impacted.
During Operation Barbarossa, the American Civil War and the Korean War, the Russians, the Union and the Chinese took much higher casualties than their foes, but they had such a huge advantage in men and material that they were able to take the staggering losses; often increasing the size and capability of their armies even as they were crushed on the battlefield. The Confederacy and Third Reich, however, were not in positions to replace their losses, and any damage to their armies permanently decreased their capabilities. The Battle of Kursk, for instance, saw the crippling of the Germany’s armored forces, as well as the cream of their infantry. Whilst the Germans would continue fighting after Kursk, their ability to launch offensives was permanently lost. The Soviets took higher casualties, but as they were vastly out-producing Germany, these were quickly replaced and it made little long-term difference to their war effort.
Similarly, the Confederacy won the vast majority of battles during the civil war; often inflicting two-to-one casualty rates upon Union armies. The Confederacy was also blessed with far more competent and innovative generals, some of which will be discussed later. Ultimately, though, the Union had such a massive advantage in men and industry that losing any number of battles only delayed the inevitable; the Confederates still took casualties in every fight and these could not be replaced. The turning point in the war was when the Union realized this fact and ceased being cautious, resorting to human wave tactics and attacks against fortified positions, to eventually wear their opponents down. In both scenarios resources counted for more than training, technical advantages and talent. The main takeaway from this is it is often better to refuse a battle, even if it is a likely victory, to preserve your resources. In many cases, delaying battle, and refusing to engage your enemy when you are in a better long term strategic or political position, means you gain strength overtime and your opponent loses it.
Such strategies are known as “Fabian Tactics,” after the Roman General and Consul Fabius Maximus. During the second Punic War, Hannibal Barca had managed one of the greatest feats in military history by marching the entirety of his army across the Alps, catching the Romans completely off-guard. Driven by a combination of shock and arrogance, the legions were assembled and battle was offered to the wily Carthaginian. Hannibal dealt the Romans two of the greatest defeats in military history, the first at Cannæ and the second at Lake Trasimene. Using cunning tactics, Hannibal was able to destroy two complete Roman field armies, and, with them, the majority of the Republic’s armed forces. The Romans were despondent as it seemed that Hannibal was free to rampage across Italy and siege their cities at will. In an act of desperation, the Consul Fabius was given command of the remaining Roman forces. Fabius realized that neither he nor any other Roman general could hope to match Hannibal’s brilliance, and so he simply refused to offer battle. For the next decade the Roman and Carthaginian armies chased one another across Italy, with each one taking a better position and daring the other to attack them. Neither general was stupid, though, and so there was a stalemate. As Hannibal lacked heavy siege weapons or supply lines his army had to keep moving, and was unable to siege any Roman city. Since most of Hannibal’s army was composed of mercenaries and barbarians, over time more and more of them left, died of illness, or starved. The Romans on the other hand were fighting in their own land and had extremely short supply lines, accurate maps and an army that grew as more and more males came of military age. Simply put, as time went on Hannibal’s force hæmorrhaged as the Roman forces swelled. Had Fabius’ army been defeated in battle, it is possible the Romans might have sued for peace, or Hannibal may have considered marching on Rome itself.
Fabain Tactics, this strategy of wearing your opponents down and refusing to offer battle, was used notably by George Washington who refused to partake in large-scale engagements, and, instead, opted to wear down the British armies’ morale, and deal them damage in smaller actions. Further, the Russians are often considered to be the masters, drawing Napoleon deeper and deeper into Russia before burning Moscow, and forcing the French to march back through a brutal Russian winter.
Probably the most obvious application of this principle is towards “the Happening” — an event which is often fantasized about, in which there will be a mass uprising, or some other form of social unrest where Rightists will regain power. The more extreme advocates support triggering this conflict ourselves, under the belief we can win if the current order collapses. In my mind this is a scenario we want to avoid at all costs. While things are gradually changing, the Left is still in control of the government, army, police forces and mainstream media. Until the overall situation improves, we need to maintain a difficult balancing act between getting public attention, and not going far enough to trigger a crackdown. While we should keep irritating the giant, we must to be careful not to sting it; keeping on the edge of what triggers a crackdown and what is effective is tricky, but at this point in time our numbers are small, and if we lose a couple of major battles we could see our achievements over the last couple of years completely wiped-out. As for less dramatic mechanisms of push-back, political correctness means that many people are in danger of losing their jobs should their political views become public. So what do we do then?
Firstly, there is no shame in hiding behind an avatar and remaining anonymous for a variety of reasons. To put it bluntly: if everyone in this movement gets fired, blacklisted or otherwise turns into a pariah, it dramatically reduces our resources. At the moment a lot of Alt-Right bloggers and other content producers are supported through viewer donations. This money secures web-hosting and production equipment, it pays for conferences and travel expenses. Our resources are already rather pitiful, and the last thing we need is the few people who have decent jobs, people who can put up some money for the cause, to lose that income.
Secondly, if everyone gets fired, they lose the potential to get into positions of power. Every Alt-Rightist who could become a lawyer, a government bureaucrat, a corporate executive, or who would have gain position to wield at least some degree of power, could have that taken away, or be unable to obtain it. In such positions they can influence organizations in subtle ways, make decisions (such as prosecuting people for hate speech) that would help the movement. Additionally, having eyes and ears all over the place is immensely helpful when the enemy is trying to control information. If we had a bunch of Alt-Rightists in the justice department, for instance, some of them could give us a heads up if a crackdown is coming.
Thirdly, if you become a pariah people will not take you seriously. If you are widely considered to be a Neo-Nazi, your family will likely stop listening to you, as will your friends. It is much better to insert a point here, a point there. Maybe concern troll people and drop some statistics. Red-pilling people takes time and people are a lot more likely to listen to someone who is well-adjusted and has a career, rather than an unemployed N.E.E.T. who has publicly been branded a Nazi.
Finally, compromises with more moderate factions is sometimes required; a number of large mainstream conservative advocacy groups already exist and can be used to advance certain aspects of our agenda (or in some cases even Left-winged groups). If we can get much larger and well-funded groups to do the fighting for us then we should — not only will it save our resources, but our eventual rivals will absorb whatever damage is done in a counter-attack.
Lenin described people who naively or inadvertently help their opponents as being “useful idiots”: many mainstream groups can serve as useful idiots for us. While the vast majority of us despise civic nationalists, many (if not most) of them want to reduce immigration, which, while not a solution to our problems, will buy us some additional time to build our resources. They will also keep national symbols legal, and will at least keep a watered-down version of nationalism in the public’s eye; something we can capitalize off of. Libertarians are another group of useful idiots. Many of their programs, such as ending affirmative action and cutting-off funding to corporations and advocacy groups, would only hurt our opponents and have virtually no effect on us. The Left is very dependent on public funding, which is both a strength and a weakness. Supporting any plausible effort of Libertarians to shrink the state, or slash and burn government, can only buy us valuable time, and any failure will reflect on them and not us.
There are many other consequences of my first principle for winning this lopsided war, but I think I have given you a decent idea as to the how, and why, of its implementation. Stay tuned for the next four principles.