Summer has begun and events in Europe continue on the same path they have for years now.
Lonetigerandcub asked a prescient question in the comments section. I’m not gonna paste it here but essentially it involved the question of Reconquest and what it would look like.
If I might try to paraphrase the question I would do so with the following:
“There is obviously a significant number of people who desperately want Europe to survive, and individually and even in small groups they/we seem to have lots of energy and dedication and willingness to sacrifice, but what does/what would a successful and united reconquest of Europe look like and how do those individuals and small groups who want to accomplish it do so? What would the ‘plan’ be?
I don’t consider myself any more qualified to answer this question than anyone reading this, however obviously it is a question I am obsessed with and is a crucial component of what we are all focused on vis a vis Europe.
This post therefore isn’t an answer to the question posed in the aforementioned comment, but is additional theorizing that is in the same vein as it.
Envisioning Successful Reconquest
There are several rough conclusions that I feel strongly about vis a vis the question of successful Reconquest.
They go as follows:
Political solutions are now impossible in most of Western Europe.
This is something that has been discussed to a great degree all across the Preservationist sphere so I won’t spend much space on it here, but I think it is- by definition, really- a foundational premise, in that it defines everything that follows.
If one thinks that Western Europe can still be saved by electoral politics, then that suggests that a significant amount of the collective focus, wealth, and power of those wishing to save Europe should be applied to it. If politics can no longer save Western Europe, then that focus, wealth, and power is better applied somewhere else.
I think Nick Griffin was right when he said the UK was ‘past the voting stage’ and I think that statement now applies also to Germany, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. Most likely also Austria, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Italy, although those ones could be debated. There is a great deal of scholarship on this site and countless others like it focused on this question for anyone still debating the question to check out, and that is good because it is a very important one.
If Reconquest occurs in Europe and countries like those above are saved from Islamization, that Reconquest will look different than anything before it.
This is something it took me awhile to conclude. While I was already writing about 4th Generation Warfare back when I started this site and published my first book, I think at that time I still often took for granted that- as the West deteriorates- its native citizens would begin to fight back against its destruction in ways that mirrored our people’s history.
We as Westerners and Europeans have a rich, rich history of starting political parties and organizations and resistance groups that accomplished great things. There are countless examples in this regard that can be applied to the situation in Europe, whether the American revolution, the resistance in WWII, the evolution of the fasces into governments in South America, Spain, and Italy, etc.
In addition, it seems logical to extrapolate from other more recent 4GW examples considering the fact that European-Preservationism is a 4GW force. That brings up situations like Afghanistan in the 1980’s, Lebanon in the 19980’s and 90’s, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Chechnya in the 1990’s, certain parts of Mexico and South America, etc.
Looking both at movements from our history, as well as recent 4GW theaters, leads one to conclusions about what ‘resistance’ in the West today should look like.
Yet now I think both these kinds of extrapolations aren’t quite right…
Let me quote a very intelligent gentleman writing about this same subject through another lens (note: I have abridged it a bit):
Consider for a moment the impact of technology on every aspect of life.
Now, consider its impact on warfare. Warfare, of course, impacts economics. Something worth remembering.
In medieval times, wealth was largely acquired by conquest. You rounded up a number of your kinsmen, grabbed the clubs, swords, and spears out of the cupboard, saddled up Smokey, kissed the wife goodbye, and rode into town, killing whoever got in your way and seizing the assets.
Brute force won. In fact, Smokey provided a lot of advantage. Certainly a man on a horse was worth more than one without. Gunpowder changed this. Manpower quickly became less important. A man with a gun was worth at least 10 swordsmen on horseback.
The first World War presented yet another technology, two actually: the tank and the plane.
World War 2 saw the bombs grow ever more powerful, the planes faster and more agile.
And, of course, let’s not forget battleships, which came to dominate due to the need to control supply lines. And because they’d figured out that if you build them large enough, you can take off and land fighter planes on them, which literally meant that they were moving ocean-based refuelling stations.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that everything was going to keep getting bigger, more grandiose, more centralised, and more expensive because there was a technology developed in World War II, which was the seed stock for how it is that I can write to you from the other side of the world, and you in turn can receive it in minutes and at a cost approaching zero.
This, folks, was a massive step in what we call today, “the Information age”. Turing’s machine was one of the earliest computers.
But what’s this got to do with the economics of war, Chris?
Look around you and you’ll realise that everything is becoming decentralised or distributed and deflationary as a result.
This is a result of the economics of business changing as a consequence of technological changes. Micro power grids replacing nationalised power grids, 3D printing allowing localised manufacture, ride sharing decentralising taxi cartels, peer-to-peer lending decentralising traditional bank lending, file sharing disrupting the entertainment industry, the Internet itself disrupting the newspaper industry, Facebook disrupting and decentralising content – I could go on.
What we’re seeing is power shifting into the hands of individuals or at least small groups as apposed to large groups.
This same dynamic is at work with respect to war.
All wars are won or lost due to either side’s ability to secure supply lines, logistics, transportation, provisions, military hardware, and communications. And the ability to pay for all of them. Just as any business which can’t finance its plans goes belly up so, too, does any army.
Now, imagine an army with the ability to decentralise all of these elements.
This army is actually technologically and economically backward. This doesn’t sound threatening until you realise that:
- This army can and does utilise the technology and economics of its enemy. No need to develop its own.
- Transportation is not only provided to them but provided by their enemy.
- This army benefits from acquiring its transport, provisions, and even military hardware from its enemy.
- This army uses the communication tools necessary to conduct attacks at fractional cost… tools produced more often than not by its enemy… now out in the public realm
Would this not be a pretty powerful army?
Now, imagine this army is invisible. You can’t spot the soldiers because they look like so many other normal people. Furthermore, this army has no discernible head to cut off. There is no HQ to attack. The soldiers are dispersed, almost impossible to detect, and have already infiltrated the enemy’s borders. Heck, they’ve been invited in.
Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane, and Youssef Zaghba… the 3 terrorists who went on a rampage on London Bridge and Borough Market this week… were soldiers of this army.
How would you fight such an army?
Katy Perry thinks we should “hug it out”. Teresa May wants to control social media. And London’s mayor Sadiq Khan thinks we need to just get used to it as it’s just “part and parcel of living in a big city”.
That’s certainly true of cities such as Kandahar or Mosul, which unfortunately is increasingly what Europes cities are beginning to look like.
Clearly, none of these are solutions. An idiot can see that.
Washington just upped the US military budget so that they can buy more wiz bang jets and horrendously expensive clunky ships. Generals fighting the last war.
Pray tell, how they’re supposed to stop to some lunatic with visions of 40 virgins in his head and a bomb strapped to his guts in a crowded subway station? Europe’s leaders are even worse. Brussels is full of globalists and socialists who promote bad policies and then insist the whole continent pay for their mistakes.
The Western governments of the world are both clueless, ignorant and stupid. They’re also too afraid to call a spade a spade for fear of being demonised for being politically incorrect. But most importantly, they’re broke. This is a good thing because nation states which are a relic of the Industrial era are going to go away as well but that’s a conversation for another day.
Clearly they’re not going to solve these problems anyway, and, in fact, the economics of war have changed so radically that it ensures they’ll go away.
Remember, the most basic social contract a citizen has with his government is that of security and government cannot provide it.
The answers lie with private enterprise.
Private companies such as Stabilitas, who are using crowdsourcing, and AI are already doing more for individuals and businesses than governments are.
The truth is the economics of war have changed and that means that the technology that won the last war isn’t going to be the one that wins this one.
The author of the above article is attempting to analyze these trends for investment purposes, but his analysis is equally valuable for us, attempting to understand the same subject for political or revolutionary purposes.
The last (bolded) sentence nails the conclusion we must embrace, that for Europe (and the West) to be saved, victory will need to look far different than the past victories won by our people that fill our collective consciousness.
I don’t have an exact scenario or idea of how this will play out, but I think we can see the increasing divides that the author spoke about above.
-Traditional media and publishing vs websites and social media
-National identities vs ethnic and cultural identities
-Politics vs metapolitics
-Warfare vs insurgency
-Institutional finance vs cryptocurrency
-Top down, hierarchical organizations vs decentralized, ‘sticky’ associations.
-National allegiance vs allegiance to identity group/tribe
-Large scale munitions caches vs 3D-printing and improvisation
-Large scale supply chains vs self-sufficiency.
-Corporate-controlled information-flow vs blockchain-based or peer to peer information (and capital) flow
In many ways one could argue that Western Europe and the ‘top-heavy’ Western societies are at the same place the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s. The coming economic crash will hopefully put the same nails in their coffins as the changes that spelled down for the USSR in 1989.
That will leave the power vacuum that Preservationists will hopefully fill at that time. But what would that look like?
Again, let’s think of the Muslims.
If Europe suddenly collapsed, the heavily Muslim areas and overall Muslim population would basically revert into a clan-based system in which groups of men in their 20’s and 30’s (Mannerbunds essentially) would exert vast control. They would be united by the increasingly strong (and increasingly online-proliferated) ideologies and identities that unite them though.
But I can think of no one large organization, or one large political party, that would unite them.
I think this is relevant for us.
I think that if European-Preservationism becomes a large-scale force and successfully prevents the Islamization of countries like Germany, Sweden, and France, it will probably be in similar fashion.
We are seeing this already.
We have different iterations of groups like the Soldiers of Odin sprouting up. We have very strong localized versions of Nordfront. In American we have similar organizations of Identitarian Millenials forming with quite amazing speed. We are only at the beginnings of this phenomenon, but think to what heights it could gro
These small, de-centralized Mannerbunds are united by a common ideology whose leaders/exemplars/writers/poets/reporters/chroniclers/analysts are just as spread out.
Individuals like Greg Johnson, Henrik Palmgren, Peter Brimelow, Lawrence Murray, and others like them represent just as decentralized an ecosystem on the intellectual and ideological side.
Others like Murdoch, Murdoch and Walt Bismarck offer anonymously-produced art and media that serves to inspire and unite these disparate Mannerbunds.
This is almost 100% parallel to what has occurred with Islamism over the last 30 years, where countless groups of young Muslim men have engaged in 4GW warfare in a decentralized manner while being united by popular, powerful orators and artists and religious-authorities online through social media and websites.
Obviously the Islamists are our enemies, but as always, I think extremely powerful lessons can be learned by studying them.
Obviously these are all thoughts that are still evolving, but I think they are hopeful. They don’t exactly represent a solid vision for the sequence of events that leads to Reconquest- especially as that will depend on other economic and geopolitical developments- but I think they at least suggest the ‘ingredients’ behind it.
Hundreds of small Mannerbunds, massively loyal to a powerful ideology that is spread online through meme warfare and songs and articles, seems congruent with the direction things are going.
Such a vision also gives each of us many ideas for immediate action, be it going and spending time with your local Identitarian Mannerbund (which I did just last week I can proudly report), giving money to effective Identitarian websites and thinkers, creating content and art and writing yourself, targeting the enemies of the West in all their guises and sowing fear and dissension among their ranks (legally of course), building independent wealth, becoming more self-sufficient, learning self-defense, building/mastering firearms (legally of course), and any other number of things.
To paraphrase Jack Donovan, we must become the barbarians our evil governments have labelled us.
Luckily the 21st century is looking like an increasingly Barbarian-advantaged battlefield, and with the blessings of God and our ancestors and massive daily action by all those who wish for our lands to survive, hopefully Reconquest will soon come to pass.
Editor’s Note: Reader feedback and thoughts are, as always, highly welcomed.