May 13, 2026

Essays

Quid Accidit? The Nightmare of Qutb and Golitsyn

 

 

 

 

 



 

…Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned…

 

This is a bizarre tale. It is the story of two men, four events, and how the world – after three-quarters of a century – has come to the brink of total war, again…a war that threatens the fabric of civilization, itself.

First, we’ll talk about a martyr, Sayyid Qutb.

Qutb was born in rural Egypt, in 1906. By any rational measure, Qutb should have been an inspiring and moving success story. Deeply religious, Qutb held a burning passion for education, yet throughout his life, firmly held that religious studies should be taught only in conjunction with modern, secular studies. In a time where few of his neighbors could afford to send their children to school, Qutb slowly and painfully built up a large – for his village – library of twenty-five books, and forced his way through his own shyness to try and teach other village children (boys and girls, alike) what he had learned.

 

Egyptian village of Keneh, c.1918. CCA/2.5

 

This passionate thirst for knowledge and education eventually bore fruit, and Qutb became a teacher, working for the Ministry of Public Instruction, in 1933. Six years later, he took a minor post with the Ministry of Education, itself. Qutb soon became an author in his own right, publishing several novels, and helped several other authors launch their own careers, including that of noted novelist Naguib Mahfouz. Qutb’s first major theoretical work of religious social criticism, Al-‘adala al-Ijtima’iyya fi-l-Islam (“Social Justice in Islam”), was published in 1949.

In 1948, the Ministry of Education sent Qutb to the United States, to study the American educational system. The event changed Qutb’s life.

Culture shock” is not a good description of Qutb’s reaction to the late-1940’s United States — “horror” would probably be more accurate.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah afire by Jacob de Wet II, 1680. Public Domain.

 

While Egypt was Westernizing slowly, Qutb was – to use the Americanism – “a real square”: women had their place (well-treated, but very much under the care of their husbands and fathers) but he also found Americans unhealthily devoted to the most inane things: devotion to materialism paled in Qutb’s mind, to the American obsessions with lawn maintenance and jazz music; the open racism prevalent at the time likely didn’t help. It would not be a stretch to say that Qutb viewed the United States as something in the same category as the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, or Babylon. The experience bred in him a horror and hatred of Western culture, and began his slide towards what became Radical Islam.

Upon his return from the United States, Qutb would publish his experiences in “The America That I Have Seen.” He resigned his post at the Education Ministry, and joined the Muslim Brotherhood, swiftly rising through its ranks, and quickly became one of its leading intellectual lights.

Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood initially welcomed Gamal Abdel Nasser‘s coup d’état against the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, but quickly broke with him when it became obvious that Nasser had no intention of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. There followed a predictable pattern of plots, prison, torture and radicalization, followed by execution by hanging, in 1966, that made Qutb into a martyr.

However, Qutb’s later, apocalyptic writings – from a brief period of freedom before his final arrest – have lived on, and have come to form the coals of the fire of modern radical Islamic thought.

 

 

Next, we’ll talk about a defector, Anatoly Golitsyn, CBE.

Anatoly Golitsyn was an officer, specifically a Major, in the KGB, the Soviet Union’s dreaded intelligence service of the Soviet Union. In 1961, Golitsyn defected with his wife and daughter from Helsinki, Finland, and was spirited to the United States, where he was interviewed at length by the CIA. His defection caused an immediate shock wave within the KGB, generating a series of cables to Soviet embassies around the world, with instructions on how to mitigate the possible damage from his defection.

 

 

Golitsyn has always had a controversial reputation in the intelligence community. On the one hand, the British general, Sir John Hackett, at one time the commander of the British Army of the Rhine, described Golitsyn as the most valuable defector to have ever reached the West; on the other hand, the official historian of Britain’s MI5 intelligence service described his assessments as questionable, even while acknowledging that his raw intelligence was solid.

The primary reason for this dichotomy was a remarkable claim that Golitsyn made during his debriefings, where he claimed the existence of a long range plan, begun by “elements” within the KGB, to undermine the Western states, specifically the United States, a a plan which would result in an ultimate victory for worldwide Soviet Communism. This plan would revolve around a “seeming” Soviet and Communist collapse on a worldwide scale, that would lull the West into apathy, while allowing the Communist leading states of Russia and the People’s Republic of China to rebuild themselves, bringing about a Communist victory when the West collapsed under the strain. Golitsyn revealed this idea publicly in his 1984 book, New Lies For Old, and later, in 1995’s The Perestroika Deception.

 

Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), 2018. Public Domain, CCA/4.0

 

As remarkable as this story was, sounding as it does like the plot of a Robert Ludlum novel, historian Mark Riebling claimed in his book Wedge – The Secret War between the FBI and CIA (Knopf, 1994) that of 194 predictions in New Lies For Old, some 139 had been proven true by 1993, nine were clearly wrong, and the remaining 46 were ‘not soon falsifiable’.

One part of this complicated plot was the infiltration and undermining of Western institutions, such as the Catholic Church, and centers of higher learning. As was proven repeatedly throughout the Soviet Era, idealistic – but impressionable – young people could be turned into rabid Communists by having “agents of influence” prey on their inherent good natures, by convincing them that Marxist-Leninist thinking was the best – and only – way to improve the lives of the downtrodden. This process was outlined in 1954, in the exposé “School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict Between Two Faiths“, by Dr. Bella V. Dodd, at one time a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA). The specific mechanism used in this undermining process is a concept called “strategical diversion“, as outlined to the public by another KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, a process which seeks to alter the perception of reality through what we would now term “information overload“.

KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s warning to America (1984) (Full interview HERE)

 

One clear result of this infiltration is the marked reluctance of Western academia to discuss the murderous nature of the Soviet state, not simply under the reign of Josef Stalin, but continuing all the way through the supposed collapse of the Soviet state itself, even while highlighting foibles of western countries that pale in comparison to the wholesale slaughter inflicted by the Communist world.

Another obvious aspect of this plan was the undermining of US influence and image within the Third World. This brings us to the four events of this analysis.

 

 

The “Baker” explosion, part of Operation Crossroads, a nuclear weapon test by the United States military at Bikini Atoll, Micronesia, 1946. DoD Photo. Public Domain.

 

Unlike what many people may be thinking at this point, the list of events does not begin with Vietnam. In the 1950’s and 60’s, the United States as seen as near-invincible. Although the Korean War had ended in a stalemate, and the US and USSR were engaged in tit-for-tat one-upsmanship around the world, no one – least of all the Soviet Union – seriously considered that war at any realistic level with the USA was even remotely winnable. That said, as the 1960’s wore on, it became apparent to anyone paying attention that the United States was stumbling. This was to be expected: no country is ever going to have it all go their way, all the time, and the United States was not immune, despite a c.150-year track record of winning, both internally and externally. No, the triggers in this story begin in a very different place:

Iran, 1978.

 

Soviet sphere of influence, Iran, 1946. CCA/4.0

 

From this start, there would be a swift series of seemingly unconnected blows over the following twenty-four months, that would combine to thoroughly undermine the West, and raise the specter of world war, once again, albeit of a very different type…before the old ways appeared to have returned.

Iran – ancient Persia – had spent the 20th Century unevenly trying to Westernize itself. But, the road was rocky. The ruling Qajar Dynasty was overthrown in 1925 by army office Reza Pahlavi, who soon made himself Shah at bayonet-point, and founded the House of Pahlavi. However, endemic corruption, increasing paranoia and very poor choices in foreign policy in the run-up to World War 2 led to the invasion of Iran by British and Soviet forces in 1941. Reza I was deposed, and his young son, Reza II, was installed as a puppet. As the United States’ “Lend-Lease” policy began to shift into high gear, Iran became a vital avenue of supply to a beleaguered Soviet Union.

 

Official portrait of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, 1973. Public Domain.

 

Following World War 2, Reza II worked to repair his house’s reputation, and began a program of modernization. However, the Soviet penetration of Iran had immeasurably strengthened the Tudeh Party, the Iranian Communist Party. This group helped to foment the unrest of 1952-53, which ultimately resulted in the United States overthrowing a democratically-elected government, in favor of an autocratic monarchy.

In the aftermath of Operation Ajax, Reza II worked hard to modernize and and Westernize Iran. Ultimately, the Shah turned into Iran into a bastion of Western military power directly abutting the Soviet Union’s border.

In doing so, he came into conflict with hardline Shi’ite clerics, ultimately led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. However, it is increasingly apparent that the Tudeh Party began infiltrating the Shi’ite religious establishment in Iran, in a manner similar to that used in the United States.

 

Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran after 14 years exile on February 1, 1979. Photo by Sajed.ir

 

Exiled to Turkey in 1965 (where he stayed in the home of a Colonel in Turkish military intelligence), Khomeini moved to the Shia holy city of Najaf, Iraq, where he would remain until October of 1978, when he was expelled on the direct orders of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Khomeini had by then assumed the leadership of anti-Shah sentiment in Iran, following the death “under mysterious circumstances” of the previous acknowledged leader, the revolutionary sociologist and historian Dr. Ali Shariati in a Southampton hospital in 1977.

Iran had become increasingly unstable in the preceding five years, so much so that the Shah – ill with terminal cancer – was completely unable to deal with the unrest. As well, the United States appeared utterly incapable of aiding one of its most important allies in the Middle East. With Khomeini’s expulsion from Iraq, the situation escalated, until the Shah and his family “went on vacation” at the end of January, 1979. Khomeini returned in triumph on the first of February, and officially declared the end of the monarchy and the creation of an “Islamic republic” on the eleventh. The increasingly downward spiral within Iran led directly to an open break with the United States, with the seizure of the US embassy on November 4th.

The appearance of helplessness in its inability to save what appeared to be one of its strongest allies severely – possibly irreparably – damaged the image of the United States as a strong bulwark of democracy in the world. Abandoning South Vietnam to its fate after a bruising, 15-year long war could be written off as a stumble. Likewise, the fall of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua could be viewed as inevitable. But, like the shattering of the public perception of the character of the Vietnam War following the release of the so-called “Pentagon Papers“, the fall of the Shah and the radicalization of Iran came as a brutal shock to many in the West, but especially to many in America. Indeed, the fall of the Shah  was the prime reason behind the complete defeat of of President Jimmy Carter’s reelection bid.

But then, a curious thing happened.

Nearly forgotten by the Western public, some two weeks after the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, a group of men stormed the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, on November 20, 1979.

 

Saudi soldiers wearing gas masks, and armed with G3 battle rifles, fight their way into the Qaboo Underground beneath the Grand Mosque of Mecca, 1979. Public Domain, per “Saudi Arabian Law Royal Decree No: M/41”

 

The bloody, two-week long siege of the Grand Mosque – Islam’s holiest shrine – seriously undermined the ruling House of Saud, in ways not fully understood at the time. However, within the Islamic world, the stamping out of a “false Mahdi“, and the frantic attempts to blame the Khomeini regime for the attack backfired, as Khomeini (and the KGB) swiftly capitalized on the attack by blaming it on the United States. The resulting uproar caused demonstrations and riots throughout the Muslim world, and led to the destruction by mobs of the US embassies in Libya and Pakistan.

Although the militants were rooted out, and the leader and 67 of his surviving men were beheaded for the seizure, the real aftermath was that the Saudi monarchy was forced to yield more and more authority to the country’s conservative Ulama.

Then, a mere twenty days after the retaking of the Grand Mosque – on December 24th – the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

 

Soldiers ride aboard a Soviet BMD airborne combat vehicle, 1986. DoD photo. Public Domain.

 

This event was widely regarded as the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union; in fact, it was frequently referred to as the “Soviet Union’s Vietnam“. The United States – feeling pushed to the proverbial wall – was bound to act eventually, the actions of certain individuals notwithstanding. The Soviet system, by then already imploding, could not handle the strain. They would withdraw, clearly beaten, in 1989, as the Berlin Wall came down, and the Warsaw Pact collapsed.

But, there is one final act to this blood-soaked play: The Iran-Iraq War.

 

An aerial view of the Iranian frigate IS Sahand (74) burning on 18 April 1988, after being attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65), during Operation Praying Mantis. Photo by US Navy. Public Domain.

 

Iraq invaded Revolutionary Iran on September 22, 1980, sparking an eight-year long bloodbath that was a very loud echo of World War 1‘s trench warfare, as Iraqi and Iranian forces battered each other senseless. This war would the first widespread use of ballistic missiles in war, the return of large-scale chemical warfare, the near-sinking of a US destroyer, and the US Navy fighting its first real fleet action since WW2, which also saw its first combat use of anti-ship missiles, resulting in the effective destruction of Iran’s navy. This would lead to the exposure of shady backroom deals by the United States that effectively prolonged the war, further weakening and tarnishing its image, even as it seemingly “won” the Cold War.

 

Iranian Troops in Forward Trenches during Iran Iraq War. CCA/4.0

 

Over the next twelve years, the United States seemed to steadily decline in influence: it proved unable to capitalize on its defeat of Saddam’s Iraq in 1990; its abandonment of Sunni Kurds and Shi’te Iraqi’s in their attempt to overthrow Saddam seriously damaged the image of the Bush Administration, and contributed to the defeat of his reelection bid in 1992. His successor, William Jefferson Clinton, appeared incapable of dealing with even minor opponents, nor capable of effectively stopping massacres in Europe and worse ones in Africa, as the United Nations stood mutely by.

Both times.

 


 

…To review, we have a sequence of four events, spanning some twenty-four months – three of the events happening in the space of a mere eight weeks – that are clearly related to, and feed off of each other, yet which have no real reason to exist separately:

  • The implosion of the Pahlavi regime, while perhaps inevitable, was noticeably accelerated by the expulsion of Khomeini from Iraq by Saddam Hussein, a known and acknowledged ally of the Soviet state. That implosion and collapse led, swiftly and directly, to the imposition of a brutal regime almost irretrievably hostile to the United States, a regime certainly heavily infiltrated by the Iranian Communist Party.
  • While no hard evidence exists pointing to Soviet or Iranian Revolutionary involvement with the seizure of the Grand Mosque, both Iranian and KGB sources were surprisingly swift to put out believable stories blaming the United States for a very unique and specific event…which, in the KGB’s case, is even stranger, given what would happen eight weeks after the Grand Mosque was retaken by Saudi forces.
  • The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an act of blinding insanity: it critically damaged the Soviet Union’s image throughout the Muslim world, and virtually guaranteed a steady stream of volunteers to battle “godless Communist dogs” — America might be the “Great Satan“, as Khomeini continually railed, but they were at least nominally Christian, and thus, “People of the Book“. Likewise, there could be no rational view of the invasion by the Western powers as anything but a direct threat to Pakistan, another US ally in upheaval, already facing the regional titan of India – then, a some-time ally of the Soviets – and now facing the might of the Soviet Union hard against their northern border. There was no scenario in which the US could not respond as they ultimately did, arming and training the Afghan Mujaheddin…and waiting in the wings, were the students of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb’s final, apocalyptic tracts, written after the duress of imprisonment and torture, had nowhere to go, and were withering on their poisoned vine…until saved by the revolutionary fervor of an “honest holy war,” against an avowed enemy of all religion.
  • Some nine months later, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. While much has been made of Soviet attempts at courting both sides, in reality the long, bloody war worked doubly in the Soviets’ favor: Revolutionary Iran was bled white, losing nearly an entire generation of its young men in the fighting, while its attempts to spread its revolution were severely curtailed with the wrecking of its economy and the utter destruction of its navy. Meanwhile, Saddam’s Iraq was badly weakened, and in his weakened state, he could be counted on to act foolishly, out of desperation, when his neighbors refused to give him leeway with Iraq’s debts incurred fighting revolutionary Iran.

 

 

USAF aircraft of the 4th Fighter Wing (F-16, F-15C and F-15E) fly over Kuwaiti oil fires, set by the retreating Iraqi army during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. USAF Photo. Public Domain.

 

And all the while, the serpent birthed by the United States’ undermining of the Soviets in Afghanistan – Al Qaeda – grew and developed like the cancer that it is, ultimately rising on September 11th, 2001, to strike directly at the heart of the United States, sparking what has become a multi-decade war, rooted in the extremist ideals of “offensive jihad” of Sayyid Qutb

 


 

…Now, there is no reason to connect any of these disparate events – in the absence of Golitsyn’s conspiracy plan. If Golitsyn was wrong, then the events of the twenty-four month period of October 1978 to September 1980 are simply happenstance, nothing more than the Fickle Finger of Fate at work.

But — if Golitsyn is correct, the implications are dire.

As of this writing – early April of 2021 – the United States is more divided than at any time in its history since the Civil War. The US economy is effectively in freefall; actual unemployment is nearly 40%; the military has been exhausted and stretched to its limit, with its manning levels lower than at any point since 1940, even as wars and international tensions heat up. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the continuing threats to the Baltic Republics, as well as the increasingly bellicose Chinese language over navigation in the South China Sea (to say nothing of North Korea), bodes ill for a country whose leader isn’t entirely sure who he’s shaking hands with.

This is not simply a matter of ironmongery; buying more “stuff” is not the problem. The United States military lacks the manpower – and has lacked it for almost two decades – and the training to face either former KGB officer Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. This is because of a conscious decision to not fully mobilize the nation to fight in the War on Terror. As well, the nature of the conflict in the Middle East that the US fought for nearly twenty years has led to an atrophying of capability to fight “main force” opponents, which Russia – and increasingly China – most certainly are…and, given fundamental – and objectively disastrous – policy changes just before 9/11, that is unlikely to change in the near-term.

The outlook for political leadership within the United States is bleak. With a bitterly divided electorate, trust in government leadership is at an all-time low. The political structure of the United States seems pathologically devoted to attacking everyone and everything at home, instead of watching the borders, and what lays beyond.

While that was a strategy that may have worked twenty-five years ago, it will not work now.

President Donald J. Trump was clearly a lightning rod of controversy for the course of his Presidency. It is clear that open mainstream media bias contributed to a negative public perception of him. In the aftermath of a questionable election, it is unclear whether the majority of the American people can be motivated to care enough to recall that national unity sometimes requires disciplined collective action, much less that disagreements do not need to be fundamental.

What is abundantly clear, however, is that the current incarnation of the Democrat Party is fundamentally incapable of dealing with the kaleidoscope of problems the nation faces, because their entire political existence is predicated on wooing an increasingly shrinking minority, while desperately trying to maintain control of the narrative via mediums that are rapidly becoming irrelevant.

While it may sound alarmist, there is no fallback position, now – if the United States is unable to “get its act together”, there is nowhere to fall back to. If there is no effective response to the rise of Russian and Chinese aggression, the world will go to a very dark place — and will stay there for a very, very long time.

 

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 



 

The Forgotten Army

 

 

In the wake of more violence by perpetrators who happen to use firearms this week, we are once again witness to strident calls to restrict the access to firearms by certain segments of the population, despite there being ever-less appetite for such actions, because most Americans now realize the fallacies and dangers of such calls for restrictions – because they worked so well before – not least, because we witnessed the spectacle, not two months ago, of the Ukrainian government frantically offering to almost literally throw military weapons of all types to a civilian population – few if any, of whom had any prior military experience or training – in preparation to receive a military invasion by a neighboring power that was literally “at the gates”, as it were…no word on how that is working out.

 

Probably not well.

 

Battles are fought all the time, on every continent, between all kinds of opponents. While it is true that the victors write the history, sometimes, the victors shoot themselves in the foot.

 

Today is no different.

 

The Minute Man, a statue by Daniel Chester French erected in 1875 in Concord, Massachusetts; Source: US National Parks Service; Public Domain

On April 19, 1775, a battle was fought outside the city of Boston, Massachusetts. In the aftermath of that battle, a heroic – even Homeric – myth was created, a kind of ‘American Iliad‘, which sought to define a nation and how it fought its wars.

 

The effects of this myth have killed innumerable American soldiers since it took hold, and has caused a potentially fatal misunderstanding of military force within the United States, a misunderstanding that drives everything from firearms design to national military fiscal policy, to casualty rates and has called into question not only the very idea of taxation itself, but of military training, as a concept. It is a myth that needs to be staked to the ground, and its head struck off.

 

 

 

The myth goes something like this:

“The arrogant, degenerate, and authoritarian British foolishly tried to clamp a tax on their American Colonies without giving them a say in the matter. When the Americans protested, the British tried to throw their weight around — at which point, the rugged, sturdy American farmers “grabbed thar shootin’ ayhrons”, and rose in righteous fury to destroy the vaunted professional army of the British Empire in detail…”

 

…Which would make for a really great story.

 

The only problem is that it is almost entirely bogus.

 

The taxation issue aside – and the British, to be honest, weren’t being unreasonable in any way, about it – here is what actually happened:

 

On the British side, as tensions rose in Boston, the Crown began to send in more troops. These troops had the cache of “the Regulars” behind their name…the problem being, the vast majority of them were raw, in the extreme. Most had never heard a shot fired in anger, and most of the units involved had been on quiet garrison duty for decades.

 

In contrast, as much as 40% of the Colonial militia in the region around Boston were not simply veterans, but combat veterans, of the French and Indian War (part of the Seven Years War, for our European readers). As well, most of the senior American militia officers, while not having served as long as their British counterparts, had served all of their time during “active combat operations“, as we would say now.

 

When it became clear, in 1774, that military action was likely, the Patriot hard-core staged a political takeover of the Massachusetts Militia structure – largely a joke at that point – and began training in earnest and assembling supplies — while lots of historians like to discuss the activities of the Committees of Correspondence, or the Committees of Safety, not many tend to delve too deeply into the actions of the ad hoc Committees of Supply…’logistics‘ are boring drudgery after all.

 

Right?

 

General Thomas Gage; oil on canvas; Author:John Singleton Copley (1738-1815), 1788; Source: Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection; CC0/1.0

General Thomas Gage – a very sharp (by the standards of the time) and well respected leader by all sides – tried to carry out his government’s orders, and 1774 became a kind of ‘spy war’, as British and Colonial intelligence teams sparred. (The Founding Father’s were hell on wheels when it came to intelligence operations, but that’s another article, entirely.) There were several small armed confrontations prior to the battle, and every one of them revolved around weapons and/or ammunition stockpiled by the Committees of Supply.

 

These raids, in fact, convinced the Massachusetts Patriot leadership to concentrate a large portion of their supplies at Concord – over 20 miles from Boston – to (hopefully) place them beyond the easy reach of the British garrison. Very quickly, however, Gage’s intelligence teams located the cache. Gage – who, knowing America and Americans very well, having both an American wife and nearly 20 years of service in America – had tried to take a diplomatic track to defuse the crisis. For his efforts trying to play peacemaker, he learned that he was about to be replaced (“aided and advised” was the term used) by three senior generals, so he fatefully decided to launch a swift raid to try and polish up his image, before he had to testify before Parliament.

 

Gage selected for the raid the British Army of the time’s equivalent to “special operations forces” – his garrison’s grenadier and light infantry companies; as an afterthought, he detailed his Third Brigade of ‘regular’ troops to act as a reserve force.

 

By the standards of the time, Gage’s plan was difficult, but it should have worked with little trouble. As it happened, however, Colonial intelligence was on the ball, found out about the details of the raid, and got the alarm out when the raid force began moving to their boats.

 

By the time the raid force marched into Lexington, the town militia company had assembled, then partially dispersed, to wait for events to develop. The details of Lexington are very well known: a tired, wet, jumpy British force; a confused command structure; and a random shot at the wrong moment, all combined into “the Shot Heard Round the World”…

 

Cropped version of “The battle of Lexington, April 19th. 1775. Plate I.” In: “The Doolittle engravings of the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775.”; Date: 1775
Source: New York Public Library Collection Guide: Picturing America, 1497-1899; Author: Amos Doolittle (engraver), Ralph Earl; Public Domain

 

…Meanwhile, the Colonials had not been idle.

 

After their political coup to gain control over the militia, the Colonials – in addition to assembling a large amount of supplies – had been training relentlessly, while their senior leadership sorted themselves into a command structure with a speed only seen with veteran officers who have no time for posturing.

 

The numbers (Galvin) are staggering — nearly twenty-two thousand militiamen were available for combat on April 18th. Perhaps 40% of these troops could be termed “Minutemen“, available to respond to an alarm “at a minute’s notice“, at least in theory. In practice, the Minutemen were usually in the forefront of Colonial action.

LtCol Francis Smith, leader of the British forces at the Battles of Lexington and Concord; 1764; Artist: Francis Cotes (1726–1770); oil on canvas; Collection: National Army Museum (national-army-museum.ac.uk); Public Domain
Portrait of Paul Revere, 1768; Artist: John Singleton Copley (1738-1815); oil on canvas; Public Domain

As the well-behaved British troops’ destruction of what supplies they could find spurred the militia units assembled on Punkatasset Hill to march into history at the North Bridge, thinking that the British were burning Concord town, other regiments – summoned by the alarm riders Dawes, Prescott and Revere – were marching down the twisting road network towards the Boston Road. Because of the poor nature of the roads, the Militia units to the northeast of the fighting actually had further to travel than other units to the west, near Worchester.

 

Fighting began in earnest as the seven hundred or so British troops were swiftly outnumbered by the continually-massing militia forces, as they tried to make an orderly retreat from Concord down the tiny, twisting, sunken road between the two villages. By the time the task force reached Lexington, they were effectively finished as a fighting force; had Hugh, Lord Percy’s 3rd Brigade (summoned by LtCol Smith, the raid force commander, earlier in the morning) not been anchored on Lexington Green, awaiting the raid force, they would have been destroyed in detail.

 

As a result, after the British column rested and reorganized momentarily in Lexington under the artillery of the 3rd Brigade, they set out for Boston. Along the way, the leading elements of multiple Militia regiments struck the British column with as much force as they could; Brigadier General Hugh, 5th Earl Percy, wisely kept his column moving as quickly as he was able. As the Militia companies fired on the British, and the column continued its retreat, the remainder of the arriving regiments piled into the pursuing Militia column that snaked back along what is now called “Battle Road”.

 

Map showing the route of the British army’s 18-mile retreat from Concord to Charlestown in the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. It shows the major points of conflict, as well as showing the route taken by Hugh, Earl Percy’s reinforcements; Date:Unknown date; Source: PDF created in 2000 (http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/mima/ppMaps/MIMAmap2.pdf); Author: US National Park Service; Public Domain (Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concord_Retreat.png for high-res)

 

In the end, of course, the battered, exhausted British column successfully retreated into Boston, while the pursuing Militia regiments fed in around the city to establish siege lines, beginning the American War of Independence…

 

…Which brings us to — “What’s the point of this article?

 

The foregoing should demonstrate the obvious: that the Colonial Militia could never have fought the battle it did on the 19th of April without spending significant time training relentlessly and assembling a real supply base well beforehand — a supply base, incidentally, that shaped the entire course of the battle.

 

This leads us to several lessons about the “spontaneous uprising of disgruntled farmers”:

  • Training works. Disorganized rabble goes to war in droves – and dies in droves. Although they might win – will they have a viable population afterwards?
  • Supplies are vital. Without them, the enemy likely won’t go after you immediately…of course, you can’t go after them, either. For the modern “Patriot” militia in the US, this means that you need to stop being selfish and greedy, and start buying supplies for a unit, with the full knowledge that you are going to give all of that stuff away early, on.
  • Have a plan. Even if it’s a bad plan, that’s better than no plan at all.
  • Learn about “things military”. The myth of the “Armed, Righteous Farmer” (or “Worker”, take note) translates both to people feeling that they do not need to know much about “military stuff”, but also – dangerously – that it can’t be overly complicated. This, in turn, usually prevents people from asking things like, “Why are we spending US$148million for an airplane that doesn’t have an engine?” See: A, B & C
  • Don’t believe your own press. Ever.

 


 

Which brings us to…..

 

 

MURPHY’S LAW — Professionals vs Amateurs

 

 

 

Murphy’s Second Law of Combat is:

 

“Professionals’ are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.”

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

There is a dangerous – and frankly, bizarre – notion that has been creeping into the Western psyche for the last twenty or so years. This particular pearl of twisted, acrobatic logic goes something like this:

 

Standing armies are dangerous to Liberty, are ridiculously expensive, encourage “foreign adventures”, and really aren’t all that capable, when it comes to winning wars. After all, that was the view of America’s Founding Fathers, and they were generally right, more than they were wrong, so this must be the case. Therefore, we just need to forget about standing forces, and rely on Citizen militias, like in the early days of the American and French republics – after all, the Swiss and the Israeli armies are all or mostly militias, and they do just fine…

 

…Now, this argument is rightly laughed at openly by anyone with anything more than the most cursory knowledge of military history or science — but the problem in both the United States, and increasingly in the other Western powers, is that few people study either subject. Indeed, it can be argued that the study of these subjects by anyone outside the professional military establishment is actively discouraged, with many institutions of higher learning being openly hostile to the very idea of devoting resources to such classes.

 

As a result, what had been the occasional comedic relief and internet meme fodder provided by certain political figures breathlessly ranting about the evils of bayonet lugs, “magazine bullet clips“, and “shoulder things that go up” has now taken on a far more serious dimension, as people who should know better are increasingly making dangerous attempts to use badly flawed historical references or simple dismissals and assumptions to prove their case.

 

While it is clear that armies can be dangerous liabilities to their home countries, as of the earlyearly-2000’s, few states in the world can be accurately described as being “military dictatorships”. Nor has this been the case for many years. However, given the history of the past hundred years, a tyranny enforced at bayonet-point is a valid fear.

 

But it remains – or should remain – a remote fear.

 

The willful disregard of history, technology, economics, logic and psychology in certain quarters, especially in hyper-unstable times such as these is a direct result, in most Western countries, of two or more decades of confused missions, “mission creep“, and shocking levels of mismanagement in defense expenditures and policies; the United States is unique only in the scale of its own issues.

 

This attitude is typified – to cite just one example – among adherents of former US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who infamously suggested (supposedly as a joke) pursuing every enemy from Osama bin Laden to Somali pirates using mercenaries operating under Congressionally-issued “Letters of Marque” — in apparent ignorance of how such documents worked in the past, what the ramifications (legally, as well as internationally) could be, nor even the simple fact that there is painfully little incentive for anyone to pursue or attack such targets.

 

But that sidesteps the real issue, that being where these prospective privateers got their training and equipment in the first place…but that is a digression from the point.

 

To grasp this problem in full bloom, this author had it explained to him by a person, via Facebook (with, apparently, a completely straight face) that standing armies – and presumably, their training – were pointless, because all that training and equipment failed to prevent the slaughter at Omaha Beach, on D-Day, and that likewise, all the training and equipment in the world failed the US Army Rangers in Mogadishu, as well as the lack of victory in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and now in Syria, to say nothing of Vietnam

 

…It is truly difficult to attempt to argue at such a level of “un-knowledge” (hooray for adding to the English language?).

 

To demonstrate this problem, let us engage in a thought experiment.

 

I propose a situation where two thousand people are assembled in a parking lot. We will divide them into two equal groups. These two thousand people are uniformly aged 18 – 25; are 90% male/10% female; are all in what could be generally regarded as “good physical condition“; and finally, all of whom are capable of reading to at least the eighth grade level.

 

These two units together, equal the manpower of two slightly large light infantry battalions. We will train each battalion for one year, at the end of which, they will fight. Battalion A will be trained the way citizen militia aficionados think they should be trained. Battalion B will receive a more conventional training regimen. Both battalions will have access to the exact same weapons and equipment.

 

Both battalions will be provided with teams of experienced instructors; but here is the first difference: Battalion A’s instructors will be a grab bag of prior service veterans from various armed forces, while Battalion B’s instructors will be a dedicated and experienced team of professional soldiers, working from a minutely planned schedule. (We’ll leave aside how Battalion A’s instructors actually got their training, for the moment.)

 

Neither group of instructors will accompany their battalions into the coming fight in a year’s time.

 

How will this play out? We’ll begin with Battalion A.

 

Firstly, Battalion A’s troops will have to purchase their equipment from their own pockets. This will significantly degrade their individual supply situation, because they are from a cross-section of the economic spectrum. Modern military equipment is expensive — it takes roughly US$3,000, as of 2016, to equip one person as a light infantry soldier with the most basic level of gear.

 

This also impacts their weapons: modern crew-served weapons (machine guns and mortars) are significantly expensive; the US military currently pays c.$25,000 for every 81mm mortar it buys – and there are anywhere from four to eight in an infantry battalion. Machine guns – from M249 SAWs to M2HB .50’s – are no cheaper. And those prices are only for the weapons themselves – ammunition not included. Battalion A might be able to pass a collection hat, but they won’t get more than a few military-grade automatic weapons. On top of this, Battalion A must purchase their own ammunition, for both training and combat.

 

Then, we get to training.

 

Battalion A’s recruits are completely untrained. Their instructors all have experience, but both they and their recruits — being unpaid — all have day jobs. This means that they will train when they can, usually between two and four days each month. That applies to both instructors and students. As a result, only fifty to sixty percent of the unit will be training at any given time, because that is all that will likely be able to show up.

 

As well, Battalion A will need to rely on charity to find places to train, where they can actually learn how to maneuver around in the field. Also, Battalion A must rely on their private vehicles for both training and combat – $25,000 for a mortar is a lot of money, but that’s only half of what a decent pickup truck capable of functioning as a “technical” costs, new.

 

Actual, “military-grade” vehicles are almost certainly out of Battalion A’s reach.

 

Because of the loose structure of the unit, the troops will choose their own officers and NCOs – sometimes, they will pick competent people, most times…not.

 

Meanwhile…..

 

 

Soldiers in a Niger army unit stand in formation while a dignitary visits their outpost during Operation Desert Shield. The men are armed with M-14 rifles; Date: 14 May 1992; Author: TECH. SGT. H. H. DEFFNER; Public Domain

 

 

Over at Battalion B, things are radically different.

 

Battalion B’s instructors started by herding them all aboard buses. They then trucked them to a large, remote base in the countryside. There, they began a punishing, 12-week long training cycle, learning as much of the basics of soldiering – which is far more than simply pulling a trigger – as they can. Battalion B will probably wash out 10-15% of their recruits during this period, mainly because a certain percentage of the population simply doesn’t mesh well with that kind of environment.

 

At the end of this 12 week cycle, the instructors give the troops a week off, to blow off steam. When they return, they begin a three week long advanced infantry course, where they fine tune the very basic infantry training they were given earlier.

 

This is also where the instructors begin identifying those with real leadership potential — with only a year to get ready, there is no time for a service academy, nor even full-length officer or NCO training schools. The leaders the instructors choose will be cracking eighteen hour days, while their troops will be running sixteen.

 

 

British Army Lt. Col. Alistair Aitken, commanding officer, Combined Forces Lashkar Gah; Date: 16 July 2011; Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imageRetrieve.action?guid=d27d4312dd0f5f1534d9ac33ad07a4b5ff92c737&t=2; Author: Cpl. Adam Leyendecker; Public domain photograph from defenseimagery.mil.

 

 

After this, the recruits will enter a grueling, four month long training cycle, to learn the ins and outs of specific job fields. Finally, there will be four months of field maneuvers, trying lock down the specifics of complex operations, before going up against Battalion A…

 

So — how will our hypothetical battle play out?

 

A lot, obviously, depends on the mission of each unit: realistic orders and goals from the unit’s respective higher authorities will have an enormous impact on their actions.

 

But in most plausible scenarios, even if Battalion B performs badly, Battalion A is going to get used like a floor mop: if they’re lucky, perhaps sixty percent of their force will even show up. Those troops will have little coordination, as not everyone will have radios. Night fighting will be problematic, at best, since few of Battalion A’s people could afford night vision equipment. Battalion A’s casualty recovery and evacuation processes will haphazard to non-existent, exacerbated by many of its people not being able to afford even minimal body armor or basic medical gear.

 

In contrast, Battalion B – showing up with everyone who had not washed out of training – will likely be advancing rapidly, coordinating the movements of its subordinate units via radio. While many of its troops will be hit, their injuries will be greatly ameliorated by having everyone in body armor, and prompt medical processes. Some of Battalion A’s squad elements might have some level of success (and, being fair, possibly spectacular success), but nowhere near enough to affect the outcome: Battalion A gets creamed, ninety-nine times out of a hundred…

 

But why? Why should this be so?

 

In a word: Taxes.

 

Battalion B was equipped, trained, housed and paid by a government that took in enough money to make this happen. Just how much money are we talking about?

 

Conservatively speaking, somewhere in the neighborhood of $50-100 million dollars for the battalion…and that’s running on an extremely tight budget.

 

As of 2007, it cost the United States Marine Corps approximately $52,000 to “basically train” a single recruit over an eighty-six day training cycle. Add in an additional nine months of training, plus meals and graduated pay for troops and instructors, as well as replacing expended training materials, and you can easily multiply that by six — in excess of $300,000, per person

 

…On top of the $50-100 million for the minimal amounts of arms, vehicles, equipment and expendable items a battalion would need to enter combat with.

 

Troops buying their own gear, and providing their own training, simply doesn’t work for any but the most basic of military functions, and hasn’t, since at least the year 1900.

 

Now, a charge of bias could be leveled, here, in that the author – a product of, and firm believer in, standing professional forces, supplemented by properly trained and equipped citizen militias – deliberately weighted the results of this hypothetical battle in favor of the big-government supported force. That is a valid concern, which I will now address.

 

When the “small government/citizen militia” advocates seriously suggest measures like what produced Battalion A, they invariably cherry-pick data, and cite examples well out of context to prove their points. Favorite examples include the US Army Rangers’ disaster in Mogadishu, and the examples of the Swiss and Israeli use of largely Citizen militia forces.

 

What they avoid mentioning are things like the lopsided numbers (90-odd Rangers vs c.3,000 Somali militia, with the Rangers inflicting at least 500 casualties, or more), as well as the fact that the Swiss and Israeli economies both stop dead if any large-scale call-up occurs. As well, the fact that both nations employ compulsory service for most of their citizens, in addition to maintaining comparatively large standing bodies of troops, is rarely mentioned.

 

Even in the United States, the various State National Guards do not operate this way: their recruits attend Regular Army basic training and schools, just like Regular Army recruits — although there may be long delays between schools.

 

In point of fact, no one outside of Third or Fourth World tribal militias even attempt to train forces using the weekend method…

 

…Because, again, it just doesn’t work against any serious opponent.

 

The point must be driven home, that this dangerous set of beliefs is not merely a beer and pretzel thought experiment, nor a set of hypotheticals discussed over gallons of coffee in a cafe.

 

Gary Hart was wrong to promote it in 1998, Ron Paul was wrong to imply it, and their adherents are wrong to promote it, today.

 

The Universe is not static; things change. You adapt the the changes or you get run over.

 

MILTECH: Rethinking The Fortress

 

 

 

 

 



 

We’ve all seen them — whether picturesque castles, grim fortresses, chaotic and open firebases, or grimy underground tunnel warrens — most people know a “fort” when they see it. Most people, however, also assume that such things are passe, obsolete ideas long overcome by technology.

But – are fortresses obsolete?

From mankind’s earliest days of social interaction, we have been building defensive structures. At first, defense against the weather – mainly, the rain and the cold – was the major concern, mostly because caves could be hard to come by. Over time, however, it became readily apparent that sturdier defenses were needed, to protect us from large predators. Eventually, though, someone realized that improving those structures made it difficult for the raiding party from the next valley to steal all the women and goats. Thus, the first real walls were built…causing, consequently, the first arms race.

As time went on, attackers began figuring out how to get over, under, around or through walls. In response, walls got taller and thicker, and foundations sank deeper into the ground. Covered parapets began to appear. Then, someone built a tower, and someone else extended walls away from it…

 

 

This spiral continued for unknown millennia, until – in Western Europe, at least – the early 14th Century. Then, black powder appeared in concert with cannon, and with increasing speed, castles that had withstood multiple sieges began falling, as their inflexible stone battlements were blown apart by stone – followed by iron – shot.

 

Martello Tower, Shenick Island, County Dublin, Ireland (Source: Pixabay)

 

It took until the middle of the 17th Century before one man brought fortifications back from obscurity: Vauban.

Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban (1633-1707), Maréchal de France; Artist: Charles-Philippe Larivière (1798–1876)

 

Starting with the basis of the “trace italienne” designs, Vauban revolutionized the entire science of military engineering, developing a system of both attack and defense from modern fortifications – now, fortresses became more or less impervious to all but the most massive bombardment, and became offensive weapons in their own right. Vauban’s designs were applied around the world for the next two hundred and fifty years. And then, of course, technology caught up.

The advent of high explosive artillery in the late 19th Century spelled the end – for a time – of Vauban-style fortresses, as the high explosives could obliterate the intricately laid out constructions at will.

But then, an odd thing happened.

Following World War 1, France was left with the stark reality that nearly an entire generation of its young men had been wiped out in the trenches. Needing what we would now call a “force multiplier“, France turned to its military engineers, and built the “Maginot Line“, named for the war veteran and War minister of the time, Andre Maginot.

 

Ligne Maginot – Schoenenbourg. CCA/2.0

 

This enormous complex was a series of self-contained concrete fortresses, all of which were built around multiple pieces of heavy artillery. For most of its length. the forts in the defensive belt that ran from the Swiss border to Luxembourg could cover their neighbors with overlapping artillery fires, making any attempt at assault costly to even contemplate. Only the sections beginning at the Ardennes Forest – rough, heavily-forested terrain – were more thinly spread out.

French leaders were convinced that the Maginot Line would force Germany into a repeat of their World War 1 strategy of striking though Belgium, while slowing the attack further south, but that this time France would be ready, and could slow the German war machine down long enough to give France time to assemble allies to once again batter Germany into defeat.

But, when war finally came, French and British troops sat and stared at Germany, until the Nazis smashed through the Low Countries, and forced France to surrender in six weeks.

The hideously expensive Maginot Line, it seemed, had failed completely. Coupled with the other spectacular surrenders of heavily and expensively fortified places in World War 2, it seemed that fortresses were finally dead.

 

Lieutenant-General Percival and his party carry the Union flag on their way to surrender Singapore to the Japanese, February, 1942. Public Domain.

 

But…were they? Did the Maginot Line fail?

In a word – no.

In fact, the Maginot Line worked flawlessly: it forced the Germans to essentially repeat their much maligned Schlieffen Plan of World War 1, with the crucial additions of at least partially armored and motorized formations supported by dedicated ground attack aircraft. These additions, coupled to a hopelessly inadequate and lackluster command structure among the Allies, are what led to France’s collapse.

In fact, only one of the fortresses of the actual Maginot Line ever fell to the Nazis. The most famous fortress built on the Maginot model to fall – that of Eben-Emael, in Belgium – was neither part of a cohesive defensive network, nor was fully manned or supplied, and was not designed to defend against a glider assault, something built into the layout of the Maginot network.

However, the public – and unfortunately, most of the military – perceptions were that the concept of a fortress, as such, was dead, especially with the advent of atomic and nuclear weapons.

 

A B-61 thermonuclear weapon, showing its major components; Source: US government DOD and/or DOE. Public Domain.

 

And yet…countries still built versions of fortresses, a practice which continues into the present day.

From the underground command bunkers and ballistic missile silo’s of the militaries of the United States and the USSR in the Cold War, to the firebases and underground guerilla bases of Vietnam, to today’s “forward operating bases“, fortresses still quietly soldier on.

 

C-RAM 3 air defense system; Source: US government; Public Domain

 

One of the chief arguments against a modern fortress is its supposed vulnerability to “smart munitions“, primarily bombs and missiles. However, this dangerous assumption presumes two things to exist: complete command of the air, and a lack of effective anti-missile systems on the part of the defenders in the fortress. The North Vietnamese Armed Forces, like the modern Islamic State, would have happily bombed and shelled US and South Vietnamese fire bases and FOB’s out of existence from afar; however, lacking any effective way to contest the airspace over those bases, those forces were forced to rely on infiltration, suicide bomber tactics and human wave assaults. Similarly, although Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was capable of buying effective anti-missile systems, he declined to do so, because that would have required a level of technical ability and professional competence to operate that he was loathe to allow in his fragmented military forces.

Another argument against a modern fortress is its susceptibility to attack by conventional ground forces, such as artillery and tanks, as well as infiltration attacks by various types of special forces. This argument ignores the fact that while a modern fortress can indeed be severely damaged by modern high explosives, the amounts of artillery ammunition needed are staggering; in fact, it is questionable if modern armies possess the firepower necessary to reduce a position like Verdun – even with no modern updates – and the fact that infiltration has been tried against fortresses throughout history.

As a result of these factors, no one has attempted to design an actual “fighting fortress“, as such, for almost a century. This begs the question: What would such a fortress look like?

In order to be functional, the fortress would have to be sited to guard a specific location, like its predecessors. It would need an array of offensive weapons, of both tactical- and theater-level, and both active and passive defensive systems, as well as a mobile garrison which could launch conventional attacks against enemies attempting to lay siege to it.

In the offense, the fortress would need batteries of tactical- and theater-level conventional missiles, likely stored ready-to-fire in vertical-launch units; these types of missiles have been in use for decades. Our hypothetical modern fortress would also have an array of emplaced conventional artillery. These weapons, most with ranges in excess of 15km or more, have been in common use worldwide for over a century. The modern fortress could also have some form of armored cavalry unit secured in underground revetments, ready to launch rapid counterattacks if necessary.

 

A Tomahawk Cruise Missile launch form the USS Farragut (DDG-99), August, 2009. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Leah Stiles. Public Domain.

 

Defensively, our modern fortress would have passive defenses in the form of Vauban-style approaches, as well as barbed wire and defensive landmine barriers, designed to channel and slow conventional infantry attackers, and making armored attacks on the fortress problematic. Active defenses would include various radars, as well as defensive missiles like the Rolling Airframe Missile and rotary cannon anti-missile turrets, but could also employ more advanced systems, such as “Iron Dome” or a THEL-type system.

 

Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator, 2005. US Army Photo. Public Domain.

 

 

The penultimate argument actual fighting fortresses in the modern age, at the end of the day, is one of expense: in an era where countries are paying well in excess of US$100million for a single fighter plane, constructing a fighting fortress could be staggeringly expensive.

But not completely out of reach.

Time – and finances – will tell, if the fighting fortress will make a return to the front of the stage.

 

An aerial photograph of the town of Neuf-Brisach, 2018. CCA/4.0

 

 



 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
How The Sultan Got His Groove Back

In 2016, among many other incidents, there was an “attempted coup d’état” in Turkey, in an attempt to unseat Recep Tayiip Erdogan. The quotation marks are there for the simple reason that the Turkish coup was a scam, played for a Turkish audience, only.

 

Why would a leader – popular or otherwise – take such a dangerous course, as to stage a fake coup d’état against themselves? It doesn’t seem to make sense, even in spite of prepared arrest lists.

 

In the bizarre world of ‘realpolitik’, however, it makes perfect sense.

 

Erdogan has survived conspiracy plots before, but he and his nation’s military had come to some level of truce. However, as has become increasingly clear, Erdogan has big dreams, and is willing to take big risks to do it, including actively aiding one of the most savage and brutal terrorist groups seen in the last century.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, 2018. Photo Credit: Mikhail Palinchak. CCA/4.0

 

But, why? What prize could be so valuable, as to risk wars on multiple fronts, with some of the largest, most powerful nations in the world? In simple terms, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is trying to become the first Sultan of a restored Ottoman Empire.

 

The case for this is fairly straightforward.

 

Erdogan began injecting Turkey into Levantine politics as far back as 2010, with Turkey’s tacit support of the Palestinian relief flotillas. No one with any experience in the region expected those flotillas to accomplish much, but its tacit support reintroduced the world to Turkey as a significant political player.

 

This was followed by the appearance of the so-called ‘caliphate’, also known as the ‘Islamic State’. Although ISIL had its genesis from many authors, as the video above clearly demonstrates, its major bases and overland supply corridors originated in southern Turkey.

 

But again, why? How does active support for ISIL lead to Turkey reforming the Ottoman Empire? The secret is revealed in an ISIL video, since removed by YouTube. The video’s emphasis in its monologue is almost exclusively about destroying the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, drawn up during World War 1, created the modern map of the Middle East as we know it today. The modern nations of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, IsraelPalestine, and Saudi Arabia were all the children of that agreement.

 

“Destroying” Sykes-Picot would result in absolute anarchy — an anarchy into which a “strong leader on a horse” could step, bringing unity, stability and ultimately, peace. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no matter how legitimate a candidate for Caliph he may have been, would never have been able to bring that peace and stability; the idea that he could bring any kind of unity to the region was simply laughable on its face.

 

However, a restored Ottoman state, headed by a Turkey with a comparatively untainted reputation, would fit the bill, as it could make the claim that Sykes-Picot was imposed on the region illegally.

 

But, as possession is always 9/10th of the law, how was this supposed to play out in the military arena? Refer to the map video above, one more time: the main targets of this Turkish ‘grand plan’ were Syria and Iraq. None of the nations in the region would be willing to jump into Turkey’s bed ‘just because’, so some ‘motivation’ needed to be applied to those countries’ peoples.

 

The so-called ‘Arab Spring‘ provided the opening. Bashar al Assad’s regime was considered to be very stable before the unrest began — but there were still too many US troops in Iraq for the push to start there.

 

As Syria collapsed into civil war, Iraq consequently fell into even more instability. Two years later, as ISIL exploded out of obscurity, both nations were so badly weakened, they could do little against the terrorist tsunami.

 

As the IS gained ground, rolling over all the opposition before them, they began to edge southeastward, as if attempting to surround Baghdad, but they never seemed able to close the pincers. Doing so was the logical military move, as it would have cut Baghdad’s only route of ground supply, and would have forced a major battle with Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government — a battle the weak Iraqi government was in no way guaranteed of winning, given the state of its military forces at that time.

 

ISIS (Grey) Territory Change 2014-2016 Legend: grey: ISIS light/dark yellow: Syrian/ Iraqi Kurdish forces dark red: Iraqi government forces light red: Syrian government forces. Green: Syrian rebel forces. 2016. CCA/4.0

 

The impending collapse of Shiite-dominated Iraq would, so the thinking went, have drawn in Shiite Iran, which should have sent the main-force heavy units of the Artesh (the Iranian Army) in a US Army-style assault all the way to Baghdad, riding like the cavalry to the rescue in a John Wayne movie, with Arabic subtitles…which would, naturally, have allowed IS to scream for help to rest of the Sunni world against the heretic Shiite aggressor…

 

That is, of course, not what happened.

 

Iran Army in 2018; Date: 28 May 2019. Photo Credit: Amir Hossein Nazari. CCA/4.0

 

The Iranians – the Persians of Biblical and Greek history – have been in the war business for several millennia, and saw that trap for what it was. Their response was — to do nothing. When things got very tight for Shiite Baghdad, the Iranians sent in their “Quds Force” (the Iranian version of special forces), because the Quds Force is seen as an advisory group, not a garrison force.

 

This left ISIL withering on the vine, as no one could openly support such a savage and bestial regime as al Baghdadi’s. Worse, for ISIL, at least, was first Iran’s and then Russia’s not-very-covert aid to the Assad government. Hardening resistance by Kurdish groups like the Peshmerga and the YPG began to slice away ISIL gains, resulting in increasing repression by Erdogan’s regime. Then, everything almost came completely off the rails when the Russians intervened, an event that nearly caused NATO to choose between Turkey – an event that could have caused World War 3 – and dissolution, if it failed to back a member nation under attack.

 

This failure of ISIL to fulfill its role as sacrificial lamb to the Iranian lion also exposed the dark underbelly of the world of realpolitik, revealing Turkey’s clear role of support, and implying support (tacit or direct) from other countries. In this atmosphere, it would appear that at least some of Erdogan’s military commanders began to whisper about the possibility of a coup. From the stunted development of the coup, it is clear that the coup plotters in the field had little to no direction. In the end, the instant Erdogan put in an appearance, the foot soldiers began giving up.

 

As a result, Erdogan has now cemented his position within Turkey, as the “hero” who stood up to the military, and prevented the return of military rule…and, of course, disrupted the desultory Allied air campaign against ISIL.

 

But what about the possible “other” actors? Those foreign powers that may have been – or may be – supporting ISIL directly? Why would they back something like this? Simply: the myriad of Middle Eastern nations are too fractious and chaotic. Replacing them with one state is easier to manage…and take advantage of.

 

It really is that simple.

TECHNICAL DESTRUCTION

 

 

 



 

If I were to ask the average reader, “What is the most popular combat vehicle of the last c.100years?”, most people would say something like the World War 2 US M4 Sherman tank…or, perhaps, the Soviet T-34 series, from the same conflict (both of which remain in limited service). Some might even say the Cold War-era Soviet T-55 – which also still soldiers on, around the world — but, like virtually everyone else, they would be wrong.

In fact, the most prolific and widely-deployed combat vehicle in modern history is — the humble “Technical.”

 

An improvised fighting vehicle armed with a ZU-23 autocannon.

 

The Technical – a term whose etymology is generally believed to have originated in the nation of Somalia during that country’s civil war, which began in 1991 (and which included the disaster that is now known as “Blackhawk Down“), when various NGO’s – unable to legally hire armed private security (i.e., “mercenaries“), instead used “discretionary funds for ‘technical services’” to hire “local security” who were, in fact tribal militiamen, who formed the core of the warring tribal/clan armies of the various warlords vying for control of the failed state.

 

A “technical” in Mogadishu at the time of the UNOSOM mission (1992 or 1993)

 

There is no single model of Technical. In general, a ‘Technical’, as such, is a civilian vehicle – usually a light pickup truck or some sort of 4-wheel drive vehicle, repurposed as an armed combat vehicle, although such vehicles used solely for troop and logistics transport are still considered Technicals. There are a special class of technicals, the “Gun Truck“, that are actual military vehicles, such as WW2 ‘Willys’ Jeeps or M35-series, M939, M809 and later 2.5ton trucks that have been used since WW2, but especially during the Vietnam War. Until very recently, the closest the US military came to deploying a Technical, was the occasional arming of various CUCV-type vehicles, beginning in the 1970’s (but read on to the end). While certainly improvised for combat, such vehicles were not – at those times – generally available to the public; debate on the term continues.

This was not, however, the first use of vehicles that could be classified as “Technicals.” Initially, almost military vehicles were “technically” (no pun intended) ‘Technicals’, simply because there were few “military vehicles”, as such, anywhere in the world. The first truly extensive use of such vehicles came during World War 2, with the British Army’sLong Range Desert Group (LRDG)“, one of the predecessors of the famed “Special Air Service (SAS)“. Using whatever light civilian trucks they could scrounge up in Egypt at the time, the LRDG conducted deep raids and reconnaissance against Axis forces and installations during the Desert Campaign of 1940-1943. While this model was copied by a few other units during the war, most armies quickly scrapped the idea after the war was over. The reasons are many, but the primary one is that armies are conservative – even reactionary – by nature, and dislike “ad hoc” solutions to problems, unless there is an emergency situation.

 

“T10” a T Patrol Long Range Desert Group 30 cwt Chevrolet, during WW2. Public Domain.

 

The public’s first real exposure to Technical-type vehicles, however, was the Great Toyota War of 1986-1987, part of the Chadian–Libyan conflict. The nation of Chad – perpetually poor and fractious – needed a way to counter the heavy, Soviet-supplied combat vehicles of the Libyan army of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Using the only vehicles readily available (mostly Toyota Hilux’s and Land Cruisers) in a manner similar to light cavalry, as well as the WW2 LRDG, the Chadians almost literally “ran rings” around the Libyans, inflicting an estimated 8,500 casualties (dead, wounded and missing), and capturing or destroying an estimated 800 tanks, APCs and other vehicles, as well as around 30 aircraft, wildly out of all proportion to their perceived abilities as an army, French intervention notwithstanding.

(Of note, the Libyan general who lost the Chadian War, Khalifa Haftar), now leads the Libyan National Army (LNA), one of the primary factions in the country’s intermittent civil war.)

 

General Khalefa Haftar, 2011. CCA/2.0

 

While the scale of this defeat brought on pithy jokes and comments about the Libyan Army’s prowess, more sober-minded observers started paying attention to the concept, although little actual work was done during this period.

As the Somali Civil War increased in intensity, the widespread use of technicals was increasingly studied. As the 1990’s evolved into the early-2000’s, and with wars erupting around the world in the wake of the 9-11 attacks in the United States, regular militaries increasingly found themselves facing – and occasionally using – such vehicles, a few salient point became apparent.

 

Chadian soldiers on a Toyota Land Cruiser pickup truck in 2008. Photo credit: Czech Ministry of Defense. Public Domain.

 

Technicals, by their very nature as lightweight civilian vehicles, are simultaneously cheap,

commonly available, easy to work on, have a ready supply of spare parts, and generally get far better gas mileage than comparable military vehicles. They can also mount a variety of very powerful weapons, from the BGM-71 TOW Missile and other types of ATGMs, to heavy-caliber recoilless rifles, multiple-launch rocket systems such as the seemingly-immortal Type 63, as well as heavier and longer-ranged rockets, and a variety of other improvised rocket launchers and anti-aircraft cannons. (For a much more in-depth study, please see the excellent Tank Encyclopedia article on Techincals, YouTube video linked below.)

 

IRGC Ground Force loading a Type 63 MRL, 2017. Photo credit, Tasnim News, CCA/4.0

 

For many national armies faced with tight military budgets – and guerrilla and terror groups – around the world, Technicals are increasingly the first choice when swift formations are needed for attack and/or defense. However, the above comes with a very significant caveat: Technicals, as a class of combat vehicle, typically have little or no armor — which is why casualties among Technical crews meeting determined opposition tend to be very high, compared to more heavily-protected units…a consideration that seems to be an acceptable option for the US Army, given its recent adoption of the Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) — all at a staggering cost of nearly $330,000 — per vehicle.

 

Infantry Squad Vehicle; 24 January 2020. Public Domain.

 

Maybe the Army should call Toyota — their Special Forces did.

 

 

 

Technicals Part 1 (Tank Encyclopedia)

DIY Tanks of Iraq (Source: Vocativ)

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Democratization of Military Training…

 

 

 



 

Or, Once More With Effort, “Professionals Are Predictable, But The World Is Full Of Amateurs”

 

It seems that “everyone” has an ax to grind, these days. After over 4000 years of recorded history, it seems that we humans just keep getting more adept at this whole “war thing“.

And – just to be clear – no, this article is not a “how to” do anything. You’re on your own, there.

There are as many reasons to “go to war“, as there are human groups in existence; anytime two or more people decide that they agree on an issue enough that they are willing to do violence – if not agree to lay down their very lives – in that goal’s furtherance, “war” at some level becomes a distinct possibility. And by this, we’re talking about “war” in the sense most people are thinking – replete with dead people, lots of violence, destroyed cities, etc., as opposed to a more figurative example…like, say, “the war on poverty“.

However, most people simply don’t “get” war. From an external view, they do not grasp the intricate web of minutiae that goes into “war”; it’s not simply swinging a sword, or pulling the trigger of a firearm, or pushing a button to launch a missile. It is not only knowing when to do so, but also is knowing how and when to do these things, as well as understanding the systems that enable these actions.

While the individual “spear carrier” does not need to understand the intricacies of the industrial base that created his sword or rifle, his leaders most definitely do. The real challenge for any prospective leader or groups of leaders, though, has always been how to teach some kid – who may even agree with their goals, as far as they can understand them – how to swing that sword, or shoot that rifle.

Military training and military science have evolved over time. Even in the days when muscle power was the definitive factor in combat – swinging a sword is a very physically demanding job, when done for any length of time – it was an understood fact that the person who worked from a regularized system of actions (“drills“, or even “kata’s“, in modern parlance) in combat had a much better chance of winning the fight than someone who simply ran up and tried to smash their opponent in the face with a bat.

However, that kind of training has always been hard to come by – either there simply were not enough people with the knowledge to teach it, or the teaching took too long — it was said of the dreaded English and Welsh Longbowmen, that “if you wanted to train the archer, start by training the archer’s grandfather.” This is why projectile weapons were continuously evolving, much faster than swords and polearms.

The reason for this, militarily speaking, is quite simple: maneuver is a very powerful tool, and if you can hurt your opponent at long range and still stay on the move, that is definitely what you want to do…However, this brought on other problems: horses are faster than humans, but they require a large and intricate infrastructure to obtain and support, complete with specialized fields of labor, such as the farrier; specialized saddle-makers; special armor and weapons to maximize fighting from horseback, and on and on…

This translates across virtually every conceivable field – the never ending quest to “tweak” the equipment you have, and to find The Next Big Thing.

These all contribute to the training problem – “training, techniques (or ‘tactics’) and practices (or, ‘procedures’)” (TTP) – since the TTP’s for any given concept or field are in a constant state of flux.

What this translated to, as recently as the 1980’s, was getting some people together, teaching them how to march, then handing them each a rifle and a few rounds of ammunition to practice, then sending them out to do battle for the “glory” of whatever…with usually predictable results. And make no mistake – this phenomenon was in no way limited to guerrilla bands of former farmers and shopkeepers who had never held a weapon in their hands with lethal intent. There were plenty of armies around the world who did exactly this — and in some places, still do, as of this writing.

 

 

But today, things have largely changed. With the advent of the internet, the World Wide Web and digital file sharing, it is now possible to create the core of a training program – at almost every level – simply by searching out the appropriate files and videos. Nothing, obviously, can replace actually running around an assault course with a real weapon, but it is entirely possible to locate acceptable-quality videos and training manuals online to show a person exactly how to run the course – it is up to the searcher to then put into practice what the videos and manuals teach them (see the second video, below).

People love to share; that’s a feature of human interaction. Whether it’s cooking recipes, flower arrangements, tips on fixing your car or what have you, chances are, someone out there has not only written something about it, but may have a video to teach you how to do it for yourself. What’s more, their advice is likely free…whether they intended it that way, or not.

Military training is no different. Finding information in the form of .PDF manuals – everything from the basics of plumbing, to field food service, to how to build a fortified bunker, to just exactly how to go about “taking that hill” – whether created in a government printing office, or written by a private person (whether they are a professional soldier or a gifted amateur), is ridiculously easy, in most parts of the world.

Military training video courses – some of them quite extensive, as in the first video, below – are equally accessible for most people with the acumen to navigate LiveLeak, YouTube or Vimeo. For the raw, untrained amateur, the sheer wealth, depth and breadth of information available is staggering, so much so, that it can overwhelm them. For the experienced trainer, however, there is a vast Archive of tools to study, that anyone who knows what they’re looking for can access for their training program, for free, between their morning Lifer Juice and lunch.

For the aspiring totalitarian, this is a terrible, terrible thing, because it undermines the State’s monopoly on the application of force as a tool of control — if every Tom, Dick and Harriet in your country knows how a military force operates (even if only in the crudest, most basic manner), your loyalist military will be facing a staggering number of enemies, far more than they have ammunition to deal with, and possibly so many that they will begin to desert, rather than try to plant your boot for you…Much more so, when the enemy is literally at the gates, and you find yourself begging and press-ganging your citizens into your army, handing them weapons for free that you previously prevented them from owning — that’s the real takeaway from Ukraine, but I digress…..

Of course, if you are a Libertarian with the proper outlook on the world in general – and human civilization in particular – this is probably the closest to heaven that you are going to get to, since The People now have the means to stand up to those professional armies that you are so worried about. (We’ll leave talk about casualties another time…)

So — the next time a politician starts talking about limiting the availability of, or the access to, information – of whatever stripe – remember that information is the real root of all power, and if a politician doesn’t want you to have it, you should probably be seriously worried about why they don’t want you to have it.

 

 

Or, The Great Game in the One-N-Twenty, as the Shade of Sykes-Picot Rears Its Ugly Head


rev·e·nant
‘rev??näN,-n?nt/
noun
noun: revenant; plural noun: revenants

    a person who has returned, especially supposedly from the dead.

Origin
early 19th century: French, literally ‘coming back,’ present participle (used as a noun) of revenir .

[Source – Google]

A walk down Memory Lane, because even with all eyes focused on Ukraine, China and the multiple, deepening scandals in the United States, there are other enemies who are still out there, enemies thought dead…but who are very much alive.

In the week preceding January 10, 2016, the conflict in war-torn Iraq and Syria entered a new, and extremely dangerous phase. To understand why, we need to dial back, and quickly review the last few years of the regional conflict.

In 2003, the United States invaded the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The why’s and wherefores of the US invasion and conquest of Iraq aside, this seminal event is what sparked the state of affairs.

The origins of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are shrouded in confusion and rumor, but it is generally agreed that it accreted from several sources, including the Jordanian-born Salafist radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, survivors of US detention camps, including their nominal leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the time, and a group of surviving officers of the disbanded Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Republican Guard Corps, with at least some funding, advice and moral support from the remnants of the Al-Qaeda organization.

However, it is vital to remember that ISIL’s initial wave of success, riding on the back of the confusion caused by the fallout of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings, petered out in early 2013, and was only revived by under-the-table assistance from Turkey:

This allowed ISIL to operate from its territory, under the guise of supporting the anti-Assad “Free Syrian Army”. In looking over the date-progression in the animated map, above, it is absolutely clear that ISIL was using base areas in southern Turkey, unfettered by Turkish security forces.

Then, as Russian and Syrian government forces closed in on the FSA- and ISIL-controlled city of Aleppo, in the north of Syria, Turkey doubled down, intervening directly in the conflict, while chastising the US over its refusal to designate various factions of Kurdish ground forces as “terrorist organizations” – primarily because even the Presidential administration of Barack Obama had finally accepted that the Kurds were the one group that it could fully rely upon in the area, within their limits. As well, several Gulf Arab States, led by a Saudi Arabia currently eye-deep in a vicious ground war on its own southern border with Yemen, hinted that they, too, might attempt to intervene to prevent the total collapse of anti-Assad resistance.

For Turkey’s part, this is easy to understand. Turkey desires a much greater role in directing regional affairs, as was demonstrated in their active support for pro-Palestinian activists in the “Freedom Flotilla’s” of 2010 and 2014. Where Turkey erred was in assuming that it could secure its southern borders, as well as play ‘kingmaker’ in both Iraq and Syria, by supporting – however tacitly – groups such as the FSA, ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front, while ignoring its own Kurdish problem.

This, more than anything, is what undermined Turkey’s position: ethnic Kurdish areas comprise the southeastern one-third of Turkey’s territory, as Kurdish forces have coalesced over the last twenty-five or so years, and become far more professional militarily. Turkey’s adamant refusal to even consider negotiation with the Kurds brought it to the brink of war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, as the Russian colossus ground away at the groups Turkey was supporting, and the US and Russia no longer simply provided aid to the Kurds, but are coordinating operations with them at some level.

The danger for Turkey, at this point, was abundantly clear: acknowledgement of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq or Syria would put pressure on Ankara to do likewise, and end its ongoing internal campaign against the Kurdish PKK in its southern region…in effect, this would severely weaken Turkey and ultimately result in its partition.

In threatening to intervene significantly in Syria – an intervention that, although left unspoken, would certainly bring Turkish and Russian military forces into direct conflict with each other – Turkey banked on its membership in NATO to deter Russia from taking any substantive military action against Turkey directly.

This was whistling past the graveyard, as Russia had already invested far too much to simply back away. That, in turn, left NATO, and the US, with the stark choice of abandoning a member-state, which risked destroying the alliance wholesale, or in actively aiding Turkey militarily, an action which would certainly lead to a general war — in other words, with no hyperbole, World War III.

This was headed off by cooler heads in NATO, who told Turkey flatly that Article V did not apply if Turkey was the original aggressor, which it most certainly was.

But what of the other players involved in this? Why are they rattling their sabres?

Saudi Arabia is divided. Internally, there are certainly factions within the Saudi power structure who actively support ISIL, as much as there are others who are adamantly opposed to the terrorist regime. However, Saudi Arabia is tasting, for the first time in a very long time, the addictive drug of military power with its intervention in Yemen. Appearing as a strong and powerful champion of Sunni Islam is seen as a vital necessity, due to the internal divisions within Saudi Arabia.

In the case of Iran, they have been at the “war thing” for several thousand years, and are quite competent, militarily speaking, when its ‘government du jour’ gives its military the chance to actually do the tasks that they are armed and uniformed to carry out. This is clear in Iran’s response to the threat to their fellow Shiites in Iraq.

In the map video above, ISIL’s strategic intent in Iraq can be discerned by watching the area around Baghdad: ISIL wisely did not attempt to actually storm the mega-city [1], but neither did they attempt to cut its road access. That it could have done so at any time should be painfully clear, but yet that did no act to do so. The reason for this seemingly-puzzling action – or lack of it – as the Iraqi Army was collapsing before the ISIL juggernaut.

[1] — Megacities In Future Operations

Iran saw that one of ISIL’s primary strategic goals was to goad them into sending in the Iranian army, the “Artesh”, to save Shia Iraq from ISIL. This would have resulted in ISIL calling on the wider Sunni world to wage its version of “jihad” against a group it hates worse than any other, as it views Shia Islam as a terrible heresy to its own beliefs, a heresy far more terrible and threatening to itself than other nations or religious faiths.

Instead, Iran sent the Quds Force, Iran’s “special operationsforce. Sending in this very capable unit demonstrated Iran’s resolve, bolstered the flagging Iraqi Army, and required only a very tiny “footprint” on the ground.

This caught ISIL flat-footed, and at the end of its initial supply chain. At this point, ISIL fatally turned inward, trying to organize its rear areas, while getting as much equipment as possible from its suppliers, including Turkey.

This was an inevitably fatal move, because ISIL could not create the necessary internal infrastructure to support a modern military force in the absence of massive external aid – neither Iraq nor Syria were ever very heavily industrialized, and ISIL combat forces destroyed much of what heavy industries were present. Similarly, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIL’s religious dogma severely limits its ability to create the vibrant defense industrial base without which it cannot win, in the absence of massive supply from a friendly foreign government.

Thus, the minute Russia injected itself into the conflict, essentially replicating what the US did in the early phases of its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, ISIL and its allies – “moderate” and otherwise – appeared doomed, as there was no way that they could respond to precision Russian airstrikes.

Unless Turkey tried to intervene to aid them directly – and that was “a bridge too far” for Ankara.

The days of ISIL and its allies seemed to be numbered, as late as 2018…but, the Islamic State – like a poorly-treated cancerous growth – did not die out. Frayed nerves, along with poor decision-making and thought processes have allowed this regional conflict to metastasize into a world-spanning war, as happened almost exactly one hundred years ago.

Or, Professionals Are Predictable, But The World Is Full Of Amateurs

 



 

Any reader of this publication is almost certainly familiar with any number of terrorist and/or guerilla groups. Indeed, we see their depredations on an almost daily basis — depending on where the reader lives in the world, terror group news may be the only news available.

 

But, from a purely psychological point, knowledge of the various terror groups around the world is comforting: with relative ease, the inquisitive person can find out the basics on virtually any group with perhaps an hour or two of research online. “Google Fu” is a working verb, now. In that sense, groups like the so-called “Islamic State“, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and any other “dead-enders” around the world are not really all that scary — when you learn about your enemy, you steal some of their power, and make them that much less, in your mind.

 

But — what about the group you’ve never heard of?

 

What I mean, here, is that unknown group — the group on no one’s radar. The group that sits quietly, like a spider at the center of its web, waiting for a hapless fly to get stuck. The group that explodes (sometimes, literally) onto the world scene: Who are these people? What do they want? How many of them are there? And so on…

 

The cold facts of life are that, for all the uncountable billions of dollars spent on the kaleidoscope of intelligence disciplines by various countries, there are well in excess of seven billion people in the world, currently. No matter how much intelligence agencies may desire it to be otherwise, there is simply no way to monitor every individual in a meaningful, timely manner.

 

Case in point – David Coleman Headley.

 

Headley (a committed member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group) was that group’s principle reconnaissance operative that they used to scout the city of Mumbai, prior to the group’s bloody attack on the city in 2008. Headley might have been many things…James Bond, he was not. He made mistake after mistake, “bush-league” errors in tradecraft that no operator with the slightest pretense to competence would have made.

 

And he still got away with it.

 

Although he did not actually take part in the attacks in India, Headley continued his career as the “perfect” terror scout (a consequence of his United States citizenship, and his West European features – inherited from his American mother, a daughter of the Philadelphia Society) Headley was able to move freely around the world, scouting multiple potential attack locations for the LeT. It was not until he turned up on the United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) radar (when he attempted to scout out an attack location in Denmark for Al Qaeda) that the DHS agents who intercepted him in Chicago, Illinois in 2009, began seriously questioning him. Headley, assuming that DHS knew all about his Mumbai scouting work as well, confessed without prompting.

 

Intelligence agencies throughout the West had absolutely no inkling of the scale of Headley’s connection with terror groups prior to his “on loan” work for Al Qaeda.

 

But Headley was, indeed, ultimately working for well-known terrorist groups, most of whom were under some level of surveillance; Headly was not an “independent operator”. The same rules applying to Headley, applied equally to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Britain’s MI6 and the old Soviet KGB, as well as its replacement, the Russian Federal Security Bureau (FSB).

 

What follows is a cautionary tale, one that explains why eternal vigilance at the individual level is the price we all pay for the benefits of globalization and a much smaller world than existed a hundred years ago.

 


 

When examining the structure of any group, whatever its aim, the following five archetypal people must exist to make the organization work:

  1. The People Person. This is the person who recruits people to whatever the group’s stated cause is. How public that statement of purpose is, directly affects how quickly a group can expand its numbers with “spear carriers”.
  2. The Banker. This is the fund-raiser, the person who obtains money for the Cause, whoever that is. The Banker is the person who finds the money necessary to make the group function externally — it’s one thing to gripe in private. To act outside the status of a discussion group, money – a lot of money – is required.
  3. The Support Person. This is the person who makes the drudgery work: they take the money provided by the Banker, and use it to purchase all the “stuff” that the Cause needs, whether that is buildings, office supplies, advertising space, food, medical supplies, etc. They might use the people recruited by the People Person, but this is not strictly necessary.
  4. The Idea Person. This is the person who can form and articulate the Big Idea, both to the core group and the recruits, but also to the outside world. This person is sometimes the Leader, but not always.
  5. The Leader. The Leader is the “front man”. They may also be the Idea Person, but not always. This is the person who can be held up as the prime example of the goals of the organization; this can, obviously assume messianic proportions.

 

Aside from the possible overlap between the Idea Person and the Leader, these people are mutually exclusive of each other — it is virtually impossible for a single person to perform even two of these functions, far less, all five. This is a very good thing, as it becomes increasingly more difficult to assemble more or less complete strangers into a functioning group.

 

However, if three of these archetypal people do assemble, with some form of malicious intent, the potential scale of destruction becomes terrifying. Below we’ll look at a “near-miss”…a near miss incidentally, that led – in a peripheral way – to this author joining The Freedomist.

 

(NB: This specific incident ultimately led to the author’s joining the old MilitaryGazette blog, because while I had joked for years that I could equip an army out of an Army-Navy store, I had never actually tried to price it out…but that’s another story, entirely.)

 


 

Many years ago, this author was contacted by a friend on Facebook, who sent a link to a story at Cracked! magazine. The story was exactly the kind of thing I love to read. But it was just one entry in an article full of similar entries. So, I read on. That led me to the first part of this cautionary tale: the story of David Deng.

 

David Deng (real name: Yupeng Deng), a Chinese national, walked into an Army-Navy surplus store in Southern California in 2008, bought a used uniform, and put together enough patches to look believable (to those with no experience to speak of) as a colonel in the US Army Special Forces, styling himself as something that translates into English as the “Supreme Commander, U.S. Army/Military Special Forces Reserve“.

 

He then opened what he termed an “Army recruiting office” in Temple City…but he only recruited people just arriving in the United States from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), people who did not speak very good English, and had very little real knowledge of the United States, or of its military. Deng presented the US Army as if it were a ‘tong‘, in which a person had to pay a fee to join, along with monthly dues, and would have their citizenship “fast-tracked”. Additionally, they would receive uniforms and military identification cards that would give them some level of immunity for minor offenses, like traffic tickets. Of course, the uniforms came from Army-Navy surplus stores, and the identification cards came off of Deng’s printer…but his “recruits” didn’t know that.

 

Deng managed to get his private “army” into various parades and celebrations in Los Angeles County’s Chinese community, including photo-ops with local political figures. Although people thought this “unit” to be rather strange, and somewhat sloppy (Deng, not being military himself, had no real idea of what or “how” to teach his “troops”), no serious questions were raised…

 

For nearly four years.

 

It was not until 2011 that Deng’s scam was blown, when some of his recruits tried to pay their monthly dues at real Army recruiting offices, that David Deng’s army appeared on the radar of the real US Army…and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI then swiftly moved in, and rounded up Deng and his hapless recruits. The FBI quickly determined that his recruits actually thought that they really were in the US Army, and that they really had “enlisted” to serve the United States, and earn their citizenship. US courts declined to prosecute Deng’s recruits, as a result – no wrongdoing on their part, just falling for a vicious, narcissistic crook.

 

What was shocking, however, were the numbers involved.

 

The FBI knows for certain that Deng had recruited about one-hundred and fifty people…but they believe the actual numbers could be far higher — on the order of eight hundred individuals. For anyone who knows anything about armies, that’s enough people for anything from an infantry company (the number the FBI knows about for certain), up to a battalion (for the larger number).

 

To give you an idea of what eight hundred armed men can do, eight hundred ISIL fighters, riding in Toyota pickup trucks, captured the city of Mosul, Iraq in 2014.

 

It is a good thing that Deng never had weapons to hand out to his army, along with any sort of real training and/or lethal intent for them…

 

…Which brings us to our next person: Jeffery Alan Lash.

 

Pacific Palisades is a quiet, upscale suburb of Los Angeles, California. One sunny day, someone walking along the street became curious about an SUV that had been parked in the same spot for almost two weeks. Peering in, they saw a figure that appeared to be dead, and immediately called police…who were already en route to the scene, summoned by another phone call.

 

When the police arrived, they knew they had an unusual scene: the vehicle and the identification on the remains identified a local man, who lived just a few doors down the street. When they received no answer to a knock at the door, the police obtained a warrant to enter…and just as quickly backed out, and called in the police department’s EOD unit.

 

It took hours to empty the residence. Within, police found over 1,200 firearms of various types, piles of miscellaneous gear and equipment..and so much ammunition that they stopped counting it early on, and simply weighed it for the evidence locker — ultimately, between five and six tons of ammunition, in various calibers, were recovered.

 

While the specific details of the story – strange as they are – make for an interesting read, the takeaway for this article is that this one man had managed to somehow put the money together to assemble a large enough quantity of small arms to outfit a battalions-worth of people, of eight hundred to one-thousand troops…and did it without appearing on anyone’s radar, until he apparently died of natural causes.

 


 

Now, I want to be clear, here: there is absolutely no evidence that has come to light, to indicate that David Deng and Jeffery Alan Lash ever knew each other, or were in any way insipired by one or the other. However, in these two stories, we have two of the five archetypes: the People Person (Deng) and the Banker (Lash) who tried to be the Support Person.

 

Lash’s arms buying – whatever he was buying weapons for – could have equipped some kind of military force. Not very well, but those hypothetical troops would have been armed with real weapons, and would have been capable of executing some level of military mission…again, not very well, but far better than most guerilla armies are capable of doing, especially when they start out.

 

Likewise, Deng’s recruits were never given any kind of real training that would have allowed them to carry out any kind of realistic mission…but they could have been given that training.

 

Aside from them not knowing each other, what Deng and Lash lacked was an Idea Person and a Leader. In effect, the two were, hypothetically speaking, just two steps away from creating a real, functional military unit: they needed to have known each other, and needed someone to give them direction on what to do. Speaking as someone who has managed battalion-scale Issue Points and Warehousing operations in a military context, the author is left somewhat breathless at the potential these two men represent — although the days of Bannerman’s are long gone, and while these men – primarily Lash, in this instance – didn’t assemble the kind of gear or carry out the training for Deng’s recruits that I would have, they did far better than they had any right to.

 

 


 

 

At the end of the day, though, what does the foregoing actually mean?

 

In a word (okay, three words), globalization and mass production – whatever their very real benefits might be – have also brought into sharp focus the fact it is relatively easy to assemble a force that can function as a military unit, in a relatively short period of time…given more money, it is equally possible to assemble and train that force to some level of competence above that of a street gang, using materials freely available online.

 

You, the Reader of this piece, need to remain vigilant — there are plenty of David Deng’s and Jeffery Alan Lash’s out there in the world. Do not assume that because it looks complicated, it can’t be done.

 

Find a way to get inside the enemy’s OODA Loop.

 

Forewarned, is forearmed.

Original Sin Versus Corruption In America’s Racial History

Bill Collier- American history is a story of uneven and unequal advancements toward a totally free, prosperous, and pluralistic society of equals, but advancements often far ahead of any contemporary country, even to this day. America’s racial history is governed by two factions, those we may call egalitarian republicans or pluralists and those who we may broadly call racialists who basically believe race defines most or all of who you ever can be and that, at best, races are separate but, at worse, inequal. Racialist versus pluralist worldviews have largely governed America’s mixed history on race.

The present “crisis” over race has the racialists masquerading as egalitarians and attacking anyone, whether racialists or pluralists, of the original sin of those who were racists and whose skin happened to be white. The attempt to impugn and shame every white person with the sins of other white people, or by accusing them of the injustice of white privilege, is itself a racialist sentiment that undermines and directly attacks pluralism.

The irony here is that the racialists who make “whiteness” their new “original sin” are using an extra-Biblical but “traditional” doctrine created by white people to essentially guilt themselves as born sinners because of Adam. The idea of collective guilt in relation to original sin has been challenged and overthrown in many Christian circles.

The concept that prevails today is that we inherit a corrupted nature, but not any guilt, from Adam. Whereas in the past the possibility of being redeemed from your collective guilt was deemed slim and uncertain, today we understand that through Christ we can both find forgiveness from our actual individual sin, which is the only sin we bear, and transfiguration of our inner man to heal us of our sin nature.

But this idea of collective guilt is an essentially European invention now being perpetrated and applied by people whose own racist ideology is aimed at demonizing people of European ancestry. The only way to even hope for any grace is to behave in a way that shows your shame for your collective guilt and that acknowledges your inherent and unredeemable racism which can only be held at bay through total loyalty to the Democratic Party.

This is classic medieval Catholicism: all people are born sinners, they remain so, and only through absolute obedience to the Church hierarchy and its ordained secular institutions, including king or emperor, can your sinful nature be suppressed in the hopes that, maybe, you will eventually gain enough grace to make it to purgatory or even heaven itself.

For the wokatariate, white people are all born racists who bear the collective guilt of their race which, according to the narrative, are the worse oppressors, colonizers, imperialists, slavers, and racists in human history. Indeed, without the white race and its ideas, the world would probably be a veritable paradise run as a socialist global collective.

Never mind that the true target of this propaganda is the worldview we consider essential to the Western Tradition or America’s heritage of ever-increasing freedom for more and more people in more and more areas of their lives. The heart of this war which SEEMS to be a racist war against white people is a war on the arc of America’s history toward more freedom for every single human being without exception.

Like the priests, prelates, nobles, and kings and emperors of the medieval period, today’s ruling class are of the same group who are being guilted and shamed. The wokatariate are in fact mostly manned by white people and almost exclusively funded by very rich white people. This looks essentially like an almost all-white genocidal conspiracy against….white people!

But the truth is that the wokatariate, the people running and benefiting from this racialist woke assault on freedom, know that their guilting and shaming is all based on bad doctrines and bad intentions. To be clear, white genocide isn’t a serious aim of anyone in power and to believe that is to fall for the distraction.

The wokatariate are not “ironically” absolving themselves of the “original sin of inherited white supremacy.” They are “proving” their commitment to suppressing their latent racism through pushing through a neocommunist agenda, by force if need be because, after all, all the people who oppose this are either un-reconstructed white supremacists or their “captive” minority collaborators.

Again, as with the ruling class who used original sin to keep the population down, today’s erstwhile ruling class want to use the original sin of racism to suppress 70% of the population who are white and to buy off and capture the “victims” whose only hope for liberation is through the necommunism of the wokatariate.

It may be lost on some that the wokatariate isn’t organically representative of any person of color or those communities. A movement among black Americans to rectify their past grievances and claim equal standing within the America population as equals in every way has not taken root. Efforts to hijack issues and grievances by the left or to essentially dismiss those grievances and simply be the only alternative to the left by the right do not constitute an organic African-American Freedom Movement.

In the heyday of the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s monopoly over Western Christian culture and religion, only Saints were deemed to be above the original sin, fully redeemed from its influence. But the added twist of our era is twofold: some groups of people are deemed innocent of this guilt because they or their ancestors were oppressed by “white males”, and others, the wokatariate ruling class, are deemed living saints who are above reproach by virtue of their, well, virtue signaling!

Woke racialism is a vehicle to power, none of its claims or ideas are significant beyond guilting people or making them feel like helpless victims. Few among the wokatariate BELEIVE their own claims.

The choice of attacking whiteness is based on two key factors: the freedom-building ideas which are essential to America’s overall arc of history were mostly produced by white men and, to a lesser degree white women, and the simple expediant fact white males at this time tend to strongly opposed authoritarianism and tyranny. If “whiteness” is now sin itself than clearly all white ideas, including the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, are all “polluted” by their “whiteness.”

Cue the social justice totalitarianism and cancel culture to silence any conversation that challenges these notions of comand and control economics that benefits only the few.

This isn’t to say white people, or white males, are more disposed toward freedom-building ideas than others are. It is simply, and accidentally, the current reality. For instance, this idea of being “allies” of “people of color” ends when the “people of color” happen to be Cubans who are even more predisposed toward freedom-building ideas than white males or Haitians who are more predisposed toward capitalism and freedom.

Democrats have made it clear, freedom seeking people from Haiti and Cuba, who tend more toward opposing the anti-freedom ideas of the wokatariate, need not apply. But people from other countries who both embrace socialism and are coming with expectations of aid, are welcome.

The slavers who polluted America’s history believed all Africans were incapable of being fully human and civilized. The very Party, the Democratic Party, that once championed this even worse version of original sin, which made Africans especially and irredeemably execrable, is still clinging to the same ideas.

The change is in who is the target, but the goal of absolute monopoly power remains the same. One may find the whole history of the Democratic Party is one of using some version of racialism and original sin to create victims and sinners whose only hope, but no guarantee, of redemption is absolute obedience to the ruling class.

But the ideas that systemic racism remains affixed to at least some of our structures and laws or that vast portions of our population may harber inherited ideas and prejudices that hinder our advancement toward a free and pluralistic society of equals cannot be dismissed. We being classical “republicans” and pluralists, we cannot whitewash the inherited corruption which comes because very strong groups harboring racialist ideas created laws and fostered prejudices that are not entirely rooted out of our society.

Many racists ideas permeate the way Democrats run inner cities, using welfare to disrupt black families, gun control to keep them all disarmed and pliant, softness on gangs to keep them in crises, socialism to keep them in a state of dependency, abortion to control their population, and a host of petty and contractory laws and codes to make it easy to jail them and use them as slave labor.

Yes, black people tend to vote for Democrats. It is a sick humor of history that a Party which has institutionally never disavowed its inherent racialist nature and that continues to use the false doctrine of collective guilt for original sin has captured the very people its ideas once literally enslaved. The black community is being sold the heady elixir of victimhood and entitlement to reparations and the easy excuse of racism as the only reason for any of their failures or problems. This elixir is a poison, the white rulers of the wokatariate are quite content to see the ghettos remain poor, unsafe, and left behind in perpetuity.

As an important aside, we must state that the grievances of the black community in relation to their own country are legion and deserve to be genuinely addressed. The truth is that Democratic Party handouts, even though they come with poison pills aimed at the black family, are a far cry from the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps there is no racism holding you back” narrative of the right.

The perverted evolution of the original sin doctrine, of racialism, and slaving of the many to serve the few, have emerged as woke communism, perpetuated by a close collaboration between Democratic loyalists in the corporate world, in academia, in the press and entertainment industry, and in government. Their neocommmunism combines woke original sin with a corporate-political power alliance controlled by a party that is itself controlled by a small body of the wokatariate ruling class, almost ALL filthy rich white males!

But the vital issue here remains that there are in fact ideas, laws, and structures that are based in historic racism. It also remains that certain assumptions and prejudices, while not proving racism or any collective guilt, are the seed-kernels of racialist sentiment. Many Americans of every so-called race have been inculcated with racialist and intolerant prejudices, from black people thinking all white people are morally inferior, to white people habitually seeing black people as an “other”, for no reason but their race.

It is true the white prejudice tends to impact black people far more negatively than the anti-white prejudices being imparted into the black community by the wokatariate. But morally, the sentiment that people ought to be judged based on assummed inferior inherent traits, whether they include racism or backwardness, is the same. Whether a black person or white person or any group of people assumes the characterological inferiority of others, the sentiment is best described as prejudice and intolerance.

But, as a point of fact, the victim privilege or racism of the black man is of far less a threat than white prejudice against blacks and is nothing compared to the wokatariate’s new take on original sin. Indeed, the myth of so-called white supremacy or even the very real legacy of bias among a plurality to majority of white people isn’t anything like the threat to the whole country posed by the wokatariate.

But if America’s history on race is uneven but advancing freedom for more and more people at greater levels, and if we rightfully desire to rectify wrongs and finish the work until no American is left behind, the wokatariate want to reverse the arc of our history and bend it back toward original sin, shaming and guilting, and thereby authoritarianism.

We stand at a threshold of a future dominated by the Party that is the very inheritor of the old Democratic Party’s institutional bent toward authoritarianism versus something else. This “something else” isn’t the GOP, whose modern form of denying race as an issue betrays their abolitionist roots, and whose ability to stand against the Democrats is pathetic.

The “something else” needs to be a freedom-building movement of the People that brings all people of all “races” together, addresses the historical and present-day grievances and problems of every community, and does so on the solid and unalterable foundation of the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights!

Authoritarianism Is America’s Perpetual Foe

From old King George to Hitler and the Soviets, from the plantation slave holders to neonazis, and from overwrought religious fanatics and the new “woke” communists, Americans have always had to contend with authoritarianism abroad and even at home. This bent toward authoritarianism can be seen in little to major outbursts throughout our history: slavery, putting down the whiskey rebellion, the trail of tears, jim crow, and the list goes on to include the anti self-preservation acts in major cities and Democrat-run states in their war against the Second Amendment.

Authoritarianism is an instinct toward the forced submission of other people to your will against their own wishes and interests, even if you, the authoritarian, imagine you know what’s best for them. Whether the authoritarian is just lording it over others like some third world tinhorn junta or some idealistic do-gooder like the prohibitionists, the effect is the same: human agency and human dignity suffer and so does human rights and human flourishing.

Throughout our country’s history the threads of the authoritarian bent versus “freedomism” have played back and forth, here and there, each sometimes gaining the upper hand. The question of whether this “land of the free and home of the brave” will be truly free or lean backwards in societal evolution toward authoritarianism remains unresolved.

Freedomism is basically the belief that all humans are spiritually sovereign beings created in the image of God with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and wealth. Some of our core self-evident rights, if we believe in the inherent spiritual sovereignty of every individual, include self-preservation, self-determination, self-reliance, self-expression, and free participatory association. They require equitable and equal respect by ALL institutions (including government, business, and all others) for our human dignity, human agency, and the inviolate sanctity of our rights, persons, and property.

A world in which freedomism reigns supreme is a world of prosperity and happiness. A world where authoritarianism has even a little sway is a world where poverty grows, unhappiness spreads, and hate and discontent infect the populace.

Name an ill, such as racism and worker exploitation, child abuse or wealth inequities, social injustice or corruption, and a strict adherance to the spirit and heart of freedomism would substantially mitigate or solve that problem. But authoritarianism can never, ever, solve such problems. It isn’t organic or human in its foundation. It is akin to the introduction of one invasive species to solve the problem of another invasive species that becomes a far worse problem.

If you complain about “gun violence” and your instinct is to outlaw guns, then you are, to some degree, embracing authoritarianism. This knee-jerk response won’t solve the core problem of violence and criminality which results from a lack of respect for the rights, persons, and property of others. This disrespect for basic human dignity by the criminals and malefactors stems from the blatant disrespect meted out by our major institutions, including academia, the press, major corporations, and the government.

It has become fashionable to paint your authoritarianism in the colors of social justice and equity. The modern American “woke communist” isn’t like the Leninists or Maoists, per se, but more like the modern Chinese. They create a wicked partnership between woke communists in the corporate world and woke communists in the government. The supreme “woke communist” shot-callers don’t sound or look like the communists of old.

The evolution of communism from a strict state-ownership model to a partnership between Party loyalists in all institutions, including private and public, acting in ruthless disregard for basic human dignity, is alarming. It may have fooled too many people for too long who were looking for the classic neosoviet or maoist communist.

The basic essence of the communist model isn’t necessarily “state ownership of the means of production.” That’s so 19th and 20th century. The basic common thread is the use of authoritarianism to produce a society of managed outcomes. It requires the atomization of each individual so that they can be molded and shaped into a new type of human being. The modern equivalent of the “Soviet Man” is the “woke individual.” But, like the Soviet Man, the woke individual becomes a mere cog in a machine that uses bogeyman fears and utopian promises to keep everyone in line.

It’s all authoritarianism. While it is good to know the main new authoritarian threat that exists today, it is useful both to see the overall authoritarianism thread throughout human history and to be careful lest we also fall prey to the siren call.

Authoritarianism is essentially a lazy, quick-fix, silver bullet approach to problem solving at the level of society itself. Just cut the gordian knot by mandating that people become whatever you imagine in your theories they should become and, while some dissenters may be “necessarily” punished and harmed for the “common good”, the end justifies the means. The managed progressive evolution of society, in our manifestation of authoritarianism that seems to be a genderless and undifferentiated mass of atomized individuals without faith or family, demands that we punish those who hinder the advancement we have planned!

If your ideas aren’t such that people can adopt and use them for individual and mutual profit solely on the basis of freewill participation, then your ideas are total garbage. If your idea cannot flourish unless it shows intolerance towards all who don’t accept it or want to practice it, then, also, your idea is garbage.

Authoritarianism is tempting for three reasons: the submitter no longer bears personal responsibility for their actions or welfare, the imposer gains the wicked satisfaction of lording it over others, and the theorist satisfies themselves that they have magically solved the perceived societal problems with a simple solution.

Overbearing parents, machismo husbands, the karens and kens, and henpecking wives all have the spirit of authoritarianism bubbling up within their souls. Among the authoritarians and their followers there is no doubt this bent toward dominating others and disrespecting their basic human dignity is strong, and yet always “justified.”

The war between authoritarianism and freedomism is ancient and will never end. Even if we Freedomists gained the upper hand in America, the next generation would always be faced with some new manifestation of the authoritarian spirit. Some humans bend toward a wicked desire to control other humans and use all kinds of sophistry, including bogeyman fears and utopian promises, to justify their own inhumanity.

Today it is the woke communist that is our chief threat, a domestic foe to our freedom. The woke communist doesn’t just want state ownership of the means of production but a hybrid partnership of corporate and government power under the single control of the Party. Like all communists, they want a communalized society where the few lord over the many, but for their own good.

There are those within every institution, including the church world and the Republican Party, who collaborate with our modern woke communists. But the Party of Woke Communism today is the Democratic Party, even if most registered Democrats are, at worse, merely collaborators, but mostly just duped followers who know no better.

These woke communists go by many names, they seem to want to confuse everyone from seeing them as a whole. Their names include progressives, social justice warriors, social democrats, liberals (a misnomer to be sure), leftists, the new left, and on and on it goes. But all are cut from the same cloth: they want a communized society of undifferentiated and atomized individuals without faith or family led by a coterie of top-down authorities who know what is best for everybody.

We shouldn’t be fooled by their masks, their bogeyman fears, their utopian promises, or their dialectal approach whereby they hijack and use the very institutions (churches, the press, and corporations, as examples) their ideological forbears (Lenin and Mao) sought to destroy. Arrogance, hubris, and intolerance are the heart of the modern “cancel culture”, a new phrase for an old trick: demonize, marginalize, and criminalize your opponents but never debate them openly and honestly because your dark ideas are pure hell to anyone with half a brain who can see them for what they are.

Imagine a society of people who have no faith or family, who have no gender, and who are an undifferentiated mass whose only purpose is to live out their most basic animal desires and who feel no personal responsibility for their well-being or their actions. This is quite literally a species-ending hellscape being purposefully pushed by woke communists whose shot-callers (unbeknownst to most rank and file followers) simply want a monopoly on everything over everyone.

The good news is, it’s never going to get to that place. The bad news is, the journey of discovery, whereby a strong plurality of people truly resist and overcome this insanity, may get ugly for multiple generations.

But while we focus today on the threat of authoritarianism from “the left”, understand that authoritarianism takes many forms and, to some degree, as human beings with a sinful nature, it can arise within each of us. The religious zealot who thinks God needs help enforcing His laws, through the power of the state, is just as bad as the woke communist, but, let’s be real, those types truly have no institutional power to speak of in the broader society. At worse they may have outsized influence in backwater towns time has forgotten.

Regardless, the overarching war isn’t left and right per se, and it isn’t even just us against woke communist, that is just the primary battle of the moment as the new modern champion of authoritarianism is primarily the woke communist.

You may ask, “how can a billionaire robber baron be a woke communist?” The answer is simple: they believe their wealth and power allow them to have a hand in managing society for the common good. In short, they are full of themselves. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the quintessential woke communist front and, before their divorce, these two fancied themselves among the world’s most “woke” who, using their wealth and power, would usher in the next evolution of humanity and save the world from climate change.

The billionaire snob whose wealth and power is used to advance the woke communist way is no different than the well-fed, privileged party bigwigs who ran the Soviet Union. The methods change but the end is the same: society will be atomized and then communized and only the woke institutions controlled as a monopoly by the ruling class will have power.

We are in the atomization phase, using gender and new definitions of marriage and family to disconnect people from natural, organic bonds and make them individuals, all alone and powerless, a nameless cog within an undifferentiated mass.

The communization phase only follows the atomization phase. And it is precisely in this atomization phase that the fight is won or lost for the next few generations. If the atomization phase, and the destruction of faith and family, (which is a state of being wherein most children are raised by their own biological or adopted mother and father within the warm embrace of a strictly voluntary faith-based community) is left unchecked, the communization phase will be easy.

Real totalitarianism, which is the extreme and most violent form of authoritarianism, necessarily follows. But this can take years and will always be sincerely denied: indeed, the progenitors themselves may not even desire totalitarianism but they cannot see that this is the only possible outcome if their ideas prevail. For example, in 2021, President Biden may have been no authoritarian, or totalitarian, but he has been forced to bend the knee and at least give symbolic gifts to actually woke communists whose core ideas can only end in totalitarianism.

Unlike the woke communists, our vision of a society of spiritually sovereign equal human beings rooted in faith and family is strictly based on freewill participation. We do not need or want laws or coercion to compel people to live as we do. We believe that a free and pluralistic society of equals will tend to be a marketplace of ideas where the most fruitful ideas tend to attract the most people and resources.

If your definition of marriage and family or your faith (or absence of faith) differs but you agree that we have the inherent spiritual sovereignty and agency to form any bonds or freewill participatory associations we choose, then we can easily get along as friends and allies. A free and pluralistic society of equals can sustain many versions and definitions of faith and family and the marketplace of ideas will organically sort the best and worst ideas.

This begins to touch on our concept of “nationhood” as a spiritual union, purely based on freewill participatory association, of equals who have a shared spiritually-centered social, cultural, and economic value system and goals both for the individual’s profit and the common good of the whole. Even if your definition of nationhood differs, our desire isn’t to make you follow our concept of nationhood (as a spiritual construct) but to prevent others from stopping us from doing so.

Our vision isn’t political. Our chief political aim is the devolution of political, fiscal, cultural, monetary, economic and even magisterial authority back from the concentrated center and top of society to the individuals in their marriages, families, extended families, freewill participatory associations, faith or philosophy based communities, and their locales.

The process of devolution of centralized and top-down power and the deepest manifestation of freedom for individuals within the loving embrace of faith and family, is evolutionary as well. It is not all-political. In fact, its strongest foundation is the individual adopting this “ideology” (becoming a Freedomist) and embracing faith and family as their primary reality and the institutions to which they give their primary loyalty.

We begin with not merely confronting the atomization process as a means towards the communization of society but by intentionally rebuilding the very institutions under assault, faith and family in particular. It is not that we don’t want others to manifest faith and family as they believe it should be, this is never an authoritarian approach because that approach always undermines our entire vision for a free and pluralistic society of equals!

Our approach is to push back on all authoritarian responses by any entity that seems to use its wealth and power as a leverage to force or strongly manipulate people into doing what they think everyone should be doing. The question is not the legal rights of these “private” entities, it is a moral and ethical question of whether those with outsized economic or cultural power should abuse it in a way that violates the dignity and agency of other human beings.

Even though we do not sign on to political controls to weaken mega corporate powers who are trying to impose the woke communist way, this doesn’t mean we don’t seek to reduce their influence and control through other means, such as opting out and/or competition. We generally oppose political controls because they are not a good means and therefore cannot produce a good end.

As an example, Facebook was within its right to ban President Trump, but its ability to control a major portion of public discourse through its near monopoly power, in collusion with other platforms, is both unethical (but not illegal) and, more importantly, unwanted by us.

We don’t care why the platforms do what they do. We suspect their owners are either outright woke communists or collaborators who think they can appease the woke communists, whose radical, loud, and violent demands they fear. The net effect is that the power of the platforms, like every other major US institution, has been harnessed mostly to the benefit of the woke communists, even if that is not their intention.

An authoritarian response to the alleged wokeness of the platforms may boomerang upon us like the “Patriot Act” which was crafted to fight America’s enemies but which is now used against Americans whose only “crime” is not being a woke communist, one of their followers and/or beneficiaries, or at least a collaborator.

Authoritarianism is the true and ancient foe to freedomism, but today it takes the primary form within America of woke communism. This, not climate change or alleged white supremacy, which may indeed be threats, is the number one existential threat to America and especially to freedom within America.

When or if we defeat the woke communists in our era, there will be other forms of authoritarianism we must guard against, and, no doubt, some new manifestation of communism, the communization of society, will rear its disgusting mug and call itself glorious and beautiful!

Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here