We have spoken before about the ‘OODA Loop’, and its importance to the war in Europe. The OODA Loop, you will recall, is a framework or concept developed by the late Col. John Boyd to describe and explore reaction cycles. Boyd was an American fighter pilot before becoming one of the most important military theorists of the last hundred years (many would argue the last thousand), and OODA Loop theory has been used to analyze everything from aerial dogfights all the way to modern corporate maneuvering.
The basic premise of the OODA Loop is that battles, fights, contests, etc are all defined by the process of Observing, Orienting, Deciding, and Acting (hence the ‘O.O.D.A.’ acronym). Initiates to Boyd’s theory have delved into it to extraordinarily complex degrees, but on the most basic level the acronym can serve as its definition.
How actors in a conflict go through this cycle of response is what dictates their success. As Boyd stated:
In order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries–or, better yet, get inside [the] adversary’s Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action time cycle or loop … Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generate confusion and disorder among our adversaries–since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against.
And as one of Boyd’s colleagues, Harry Hillaker, put it:
The key is to obscure your intentions and make them unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or destroy his awareness. Thus, a hodgepodge of confusion and disorder occur to cause him to over- or under-react to conditions or activities that appear to be uncertain, ambiguous, or incomprehensible.
As I have argued before, native Europeans and the broader European diaspora have, until recently at least, done a woeful job of orienting and responding to the changes afflicting them. As a result, we today see a Europe on the brink of death, as massive numbers of foreign invaders and traitorous elites stand poised to envelope and enslave its native populations and lands.
Increasingly though, we are also seeing new and exciting manifestations of Boyd-esque OODA Loop-mastery that are aiding our cause. These portraits of strategic brilliance inspire hope and confidence. Yet equal numbers of negative examples can be found. This article shall seek to compare the two.
The first area we will look at is in the battle of ideas. In this arena, we are all very aware of what does not work: the establishment “conservative” style of argument by apology, in which opposition to mass-immigration, opposition to cultural-degeneracy, and advocacy for continued national survival all must be articulated through a careful, neutered lens so as not to be construed as racist or bigoted or “reactionary”. This phenomenon runs the gamut from the Rush Limbaugh style radio jocks too afraid to speak in racially conscious terms, to weak-kneed politicians terrified of what left-wing journalists might call them.
In contrast to this, I would point out the effectiveness of complete 100% unabashed Identitarianism. This is exemplified in a myriad of ways right now, but the common denominator is that this “all-in” approach turns the enemy’s tactics back against them. In response to being called bad names by progressives they say ‘okay- you got me’ and embrace whatever names they are called. They re-orient the narrative, so that the attack falls flat. Many have in fact articulated that this is something to be learned from the Cultural-Marxists themselves, who achieved their own effectiveness through similar “all or nothing” thinking and debating.
In the political arena itself we something similar. On one side, there are those like the Sweden Democrats, who are attempting to save their nation through the slow and methodical acquisition of electoral power. Of late they have been criticized for moving to the left, and focusing too much on being like all the other political parties. To paraphrase one critic, they are acting like Social Democrats and thinking this will give them the same success as the Social Democrats, when in reality all the other parties view them as monsters anyway and such “mainstream” actions earn them nothing (except contempt).
Contrast this with Donald Trump, who is arguably the greatest manifestation of OODA-Loop mastery ever seen in Western politics. Trump did not seek an established path to the presidency. If he had he would have run for governor of New York first, or sought some presidential appointment or cabinet post from which to pivot into electoral politics. Even Ronald Reagen, another famous “non-politician”, spent decades in politics before he became president. Trump, on the other hand, made the decision to jump straight into the Republican primaries. Once there he proceeded to give a master-level course in quick re-orienting and rapid action. He immediately focused attention on banning Muslims and building a border wall, popular yet controversial subjects his 16 opponents were too timid and “mainstream” to do. He balanced this however with unpredictable assaults upon bastions of Republican orthodoxy like the Iraq war, further keeping critics and journalists off guard. From there he continued to insert himself into the media landscape through a relentless barrage of unorthodox, controversial, and “risky” means. He caused opponents (to quote Hillaker’s above-quoted analysis) to “under or over-react”. Trump redefined American politics, and left every primary opponent, political consultant, and cable news commentator spinning in confusion as he seized a shocking and unprecedented victory.
The same can be seen in Brexit (albeit in a different manner of thinking). All through the campaign, we had Nigel Farage arguing the same points he had made for years. He (and the other Leave) campaigners continued with the same carefully polished rhetoric they had always used, and the media treated them with the same contempt they always did. It was as status quo as UK politics can get (and that is saying something).
Yet in the final days, as the vote came closer, we had the stunning murder of MP Jo Cox, an earnest Labour Party member arguably guilty of at least some amount of complicity in Rotherham, where the mass-rape of White British children by Muslim gangs was covered up by corrupt Labour Party functionaries. Committed by Thomas Mair, a 52 year old native Brit, sufferer of mental illness, and apparent patriot, Cox’s murder threw the entire nation into chaos. Many believed it would be the death-knell for the Leave campaign, as normal citizens would finally associate it with violent, reactionary intentions. Yet this was only the case in part. Reactions ranged from horror to indifference to outright sympathy and support for Mair, and the killing seemed to re-orient the environment in a way which favored Vote Leave. Brexit passed, and the overwhelming feeling associated with it was one of speed. I believe that this quick tempo (catalyzed in large part by Mair’s act) gave Leave the edge, despite the range of opinions on Brexit, Mair, and the European Union in general. The mainstream narrative was disrupted, allowing for an occurrence (Brexit) which the elites never believed would happen.
Finally, the last area I will analyze is that of macro, or meta-politics. Specifically, in the relation to the future of Europe, and the existential struggle against Islam and mass-immigration that threatens it (and the rest of the West for that matter).
On the one side we have what is often called the “Counter-jihad” movement. Represented by people like Pam Geller, Geert Wilders, and previously adopted (at least to some extent) by the English Defense League, Counter-Jihad focuses on Muslims and the threat of Islam specifically. They (rightly) paint Islam as a dark and sinister religion of intolerance; they (rightly) argue that it is totalitarian in nature; and they (rightly) warn that it is on track to overwhelm and enslave the nations and peoples of Western Europe. Yet from a perspective of Identity, the Counter-Jihadis anchor themselves within the same Progressive, Globalist culture that is responsible for mass Muslim-immigration. They are inveterate defenders of “anti-racism”, they encourage Blacks and Sikhs and every other ethnic group to join them, they support immigration from all non-Muslim nations, and in every other way their beliefs are congruent with the traitorous elites flooding their countries with Muslims. They have identified an incoming threat, but have not re-oriented themselves as a result of it.
The success such groups have had so far is debatable, but either way I would contrast them with our own, Identitarian wing of European-Preservationism. While the Counter-Jihadis still orient themselves within the same system that imports their Muslim opponents, we as Identitarians have firmly re-oriented ourselves outside of this system. We have observed the interconnectedness of these phenomena, of the players and parts, and as a result we understand that resistance from within such a society, within such a paradigm, is futile. We thus have decided to prosecute a different vision of our peoples’ future, based in foundations of history and identity.
This echoes something Boyd once said:
The second O, orientation — as the repository of our genetic heritage, cultural tradition, and previous experiences — is the most important part of the O-O-D-A loop since it shapes the way we observe, the way we decide, the way we act.
I would argue that we- as Identitarians- are attempting to orient ourselves in such a manner, where both the Counter-Jihadis and the mainstream Suicidalists are orienting themselves through the lens of ideology. The former is of course more natural and tactically superior, and I believe this is why the Alt-Right has become a bastion of such energy, optimism, and passion. I also believe this is why our manner of thinking is enjoying greater success (Trump, Brexit, and the increasing flow of normies to Identitarian thought), than that of the Counter-Jihadis.
As our side enjoys greater and greater success through these means, our opponents will increasingly react in more and more violent ways. As we recently witnessed, the German police are conducting mass raids targeting internet users guilty of “hate speech” (in other words members of the Identitarian resistance). Other European nations are doing the same, and they are doing this because they are scared, because they know people are moving towards our way of thinking. Such crackdowns will only lead to additional defections from mainstream thought however, further aiding our cause. And as more and more Europeans (and Westerners) lose faith in their Suicidal/Genocidal governments, it will only lead to violence and civil conflict coming that much sooner. This is in our best interest of course, as only civil war can lead to Western Europe’s survival. As this civil war approaches, our ability to Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act will only become more important.